Application Receipt Date: 060831 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents. 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: 050307 Chapter: 2 AR: 600-43 Reason: Conscientious Objector RE: SPD: KCM Unit/Location: 557th Maintenance Company, Corps Support Battalion, National Training Center and Fort Irwin, CA 92310-5000 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 821030 Current ENL Date: 001004 Current ENL Term: 4 Years The applicant states he was extended beyond his original ETS due to Stop Loss. Current ENL Service: 04 Yrs, 05 Mos, 04 Days ????? Total Service: 04 Yrs, 05 Mos, 04 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 42A10 Human Resources Specialist GT: 97 EDU: HS Letter Overseas: Japan Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM (2), AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states he is currently a student at the University of Arizona. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 22 November 2004, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of AR 600-43 as a conscientious objector. In accordance with Chapter 2, AR 600-43, an investigating officer was appointed to determine whether the applicant met the requirements for discharge as a conscientious objector. On 13 December 2004, the applicant waived attending a Conscientious Objector Hearing as mandated by regulation to present evidence in support of his claim. On 13 December 2004, the investigating officer sustained the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 600-43. On 22 December 2004, the court-martial convening authority recommended approval of the applicant's request and forwarded his request to the DA Conscientious Objector Review Board (DACORB) for approval. On14 January 2005, the DA CORB approved the applicant's request and directed that the applicant be separated in accordance with AR 600-43 as a conscientious objector. The characterization of service was to be determined by the applicant's command. On 25 January 2005, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 600-43 sets for policy, criteria, responsibilities, and procedures to classify and dispose of military personnel who claim conscientious objection to participation in war in any form or to the bearing of arms. An honorable or a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service may be given. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. The analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service; he completed his first full term of service with an original ETS date of 3 October 2004, there was no derogatory information in the applicant's file (ie, nonjudicial punishment, negative counseling statements, or administrative reprimands), and his post service accomplishments, warrants an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to fully honorable. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 10 0ctober 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 5 No change 0 - 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 determined that the characterization of service was too harsh and as a result it is inequitable, based on the overall length and quality of the applicant's service and the circumstances surrounding his discharge. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: 12 0ctober 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060012243 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages