Application Receipt Date: 2006/09/14 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: 1993/08/23 Discharge Received: Date: 1993/11/05 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: 988th Military Police Company, Fort Benning, GA 31905 Time Lost: AWOL, from (930630-930819), for a total of 51 Days. She surrendered to the Military Authorities, and was transferred to Fort Sill, OK 89608. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 731114 Current ENL Date: 920910 Current ENL Term: 5 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 00Mos, 06Days The applicant was placed on excess leave for a total of 72 days from (930824-931105). Total Service: 1 Yrs, 00Mos, 06Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 95B10 (Military Police) GT: 102 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant states she joined Nevada NG in 1999. Records verify she served in OIF Iraq for 10 months in FEB 2003 and received an Honorable Discharge as an E-5. States she is currently an SSG in an AGR assignment and is slated to be discharged in Jan 2008. She states she is currently enrolled in College and working to complete a Nursing Degree VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 23 August 1993 the applicant was charged with AWOL, from (930630-930819). 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. The unit commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 14 October 1993, 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 careful review of all the applicants military records, documents and the issue she submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicants discharge be upgraded to fully honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "1." 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, to include her combat service since her discharge in 1993, and the time that has elapsed since her discharge mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. However, the analyst determined the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 12 October 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 based on the time elapsed since the discharge, post service accomplishments and recent combat tour of duty. Case report reviewed and verified by: Busick, Chuck, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 19 October 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060013041 Applicant Name: Ms. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 6 pages