Application Receipt Date: 2006/10/26 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 920303 Chapter: 3 AR: 635-200 Reason: As a result of Court Martial, Other RE: SPD: JJD Unit/Location: B/3-8 Field Artillery Battalion, Fort Bragg, NC 23807 Time Lost: Total 130 days; 49 days military confinement (910419-910606), 81 days AWOL (901122-910210), apprehended by civil authorities at Goldsboro, NC and transferred to military control at Fort Knox, KY. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 910419, Special Court Martial for AWOL (901122-910211), missing movement (901122), Bad Conduct Discharge, confinement for two months, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $300 for two months. Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier's Overall Record DOB: Current ENL Date: 900501 Current ENL Term: 3 Years 15 weeks Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 05Mos, 26Days Total Service: 01 Yrs, 05Mos, 26Days Includes 271 days of Excess Leave (910607-920303) Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 13B10/Cannon Crewmember GT: 89 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant has completed courses in nursing, see attached documents. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 19 April 1991, the applicant was found guilty by a special court-martial of being AWOL (901122-910210) from his unit B/3-8 FA Battalion, at Fort Bragg, NC and for missing movement through neglect (901122), his unit was deploying to Saudi Arabia. He was sentenced to be discharged with a Bad Conduct Discharge, confinement for two months, reduction to E-1, and forfeiture of $300 for two months. On 19 April 1991, 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 10 October 1991, The United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence. On 3 March 1992, the sentence having been affirmed pursuant to Article 71c having been complied with, the sentence was ordered to be executed. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3, Section IV, 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 a careful review of all the applicant's military records, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would warrant clemency. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the incidents of misconduct. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by a 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 analyst is empowered to recommend a change to 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. The analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. After a thorough review of the applicant's record and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no cause for clemency and therefore recommend to the Board no clemency. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 14 December 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. Furthermore; the Board noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age and found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Case report reviewed and verified by: , 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: 14 December 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE