Application Receipt Date: 06/09/08 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: 04/07/27 Discharge Received: Date: 040817 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Court Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: HHC/3-7 IN, Fort Stewart, GA 31314 Time Lost: 100 days, AWOL from 031205 to 040315. The applicant returned to his place of duty on 040315. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None in file. However, DA Form 2-1 indicates soldier was demoted from SPC to PFC on 020201 Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 810929 Current ENL Date: 010506 Current ENL Term: 5 Years DD 214 does not reflect the applicant reenlisted while serving in Korea on 010506 after serving 02/00/02 Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 00Mos, 01 Days ????? Total Service: 05 Yrs, 00Mos, 03 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-990504-010505/HD, not reflected in current DD214 Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 19D10, Cav Scout GT: 110 EDU: GED Overseas: Korea Combat: Iraq (030120-030826) Decorations/Awards: KDSM, PUC, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: ????? VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record indicates that on 19 July 2004 the applicant was charged with AWOL (031205-040315). The applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense. Further, the applicant indicated that he understood that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits. The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 6 August 2004, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The analyst does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The analyst found that the length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. 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 October 2007 Location: Washington, D.C. 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 determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. Case report reviewed and verified by: Alejandro Champin, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA 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 October 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060012951 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 5 pages