Application Receipt Date: 060828 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 980313 Chapter: 3 AR: 635-200 Reason: Court-Martial, Other RE: SPD: JJD Unit/Location: Company D, 2nd Battalion, 27th Infantry, 25th ID (Light), Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-6000 Time Lost: Confinement Military Authority-120 days, from (961009-970206), as a result of his Special Court-Martial sentence. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): Special Court-Martial/961009-For AWOL between on or about (960709) to (960721), and missing movement on or about (960720). He was sentenced to be confined for 5 months, and to be discharged with a bad-conduct discharge. Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 751120 Current ENL Date: 950117 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 09 Mos, 26 Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 09 Mos, 26 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B10 Infantryman GT: 107 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Hawaii Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 19 October 1996, the applicant was found guilty by a Special Court-Martial of, AWOL from (9 July 1996) to (21 July 1996), and through design, missed the movement of World Airways Air Lift special assignment mission 3032, main body, (20 July 1996). He was sentenced to be confined for 5 months, and to be discharged with a bad-conduct discharge. On 26 December 1996, the sentence was approved. The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by the Court of Military Review. On 28 October 1997, the United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence. On 19 February 1998, the sentence having been affirmed pursuant to Article 71© having been complied with, the sentence was ordered to be executed. The applicant was placed on excess leave for 386 days from (970221-980313). b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3, Section III, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review, the evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martial and that the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. After a thorough review of the applicant’s record and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no cause for clemency and therefore recommends to the Board that clemency is not warranted. In view of the aforementioned, the characterization of service and the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 20 September 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change 0 No change 5 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - Reason (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board found no cause for clemency and therefore voted to deny relief. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 26 September 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060012209 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages