Application Receipt Date: 061019 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: 940418 Discharge Received: Date: 940516 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: U.S. Army Personnel Center (USARPERCEN) St. Loius, MO 63132 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: 650501 Current ENL Date: 910127 Current ENL Term: 04 Years 2 mos/18 days Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 03 Mos, 20 Days ????? Total Service: 11 Yrs, 10 Mos, 28 Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR-820618-830601/NA RA-830602-860416/NA USAR-860417-900128/NA IADT-900129-900518/HD USARCG-900519-910126/NA Highest Grade: E5 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 71L10 Admin Spec GT: 102 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Germany Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, ARCAM, NDSM, ASR, OSR, COT V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant graduated from Miles College as Valedictorian with a Bachleor of Science Degree in Management. The applicant was granted regular admission to Central Michigan University as a graduate student. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 7 March 1994, the applicant was charged with larceny of property from the Post Exchange of a combined value of about $1, 179.95, (931029), with intent to deceive, make a false signature to an AAFES deferred payment plan charge ticket, (931029), wrongfully and falsely alter the photograph of a military identification card, (931028), wrongfully use, with intent to defraud, a certain instrument purporting to be a military indentification card at or around AAFES, (931029). On 24 March 1994, 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 she understood that she 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 did not submit a statement in her own behalf. On 31 March 1994, the separation authority denied the applicant's request for discharge pursuant to Chapter 10, AR 635-200. On 12 April 2004, again 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. The applicant submitted a statement in her own behalf. The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 21 April 1994, 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. The applicant has a CID Report of Investigation dated 29 0ctober 1993, in her Official Military Personnel File. 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 a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents she submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. This recommendation was made after full consideration of her faithful and honorable service, as well as her record of misconduct. 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. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, the time that has elasped since her discharge and her post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entries in her service record. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. This action entails a restoration of grade to SGT/E5. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 13 June 2007 Location: Atlanta, GA Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: No Witnesses/Observers: Timothy Caldwell (Pastor) Exhibits Submitted: No 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 2 No change 3 - 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, hearing her testimony, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable, 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: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 25 June 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060014806 Applicant Name: Ms. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 5 pages