Applicant Name: Application Receipt Date: 07/11/16 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and documents submitted by the applicant. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 020709 Discharge Received: Date: 020903 Chapter: 3-13 AR: 600-8-24 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: DFS Unit/Location: W3QM USA HLTH CLN Ft. McPherson, GA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 22 Current ENTRY Date: 960814 Current ENL Term: NA Years ????? Current Commissioned Service: 06 Yrs, 00Mos, 20Days ????? Total Service: 06 Yrs, 00Mos, 20Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: 03 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 70B Health Service Adm. GT: NA EDU: College Grad Overseas: Hawaii Combat: None Decorations/Awards: MSM, ARCOM x2, JSAM, AAM x2, ASUA, NDSM, ASR, EFMB. V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Savannah, GA Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that she is working with GSK pharmaceutical company since 2003, and was named the District Rookie of the year. She also was selected for the GSK Regional Development Program. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 6 May 2002,the applicant was charged with violations of the UCMJ, Articles 107, 121,132, 133, and 134 for false statements, larceny and wrongful appropriation, fraud against the U.S. government, and conduct unbecoming an officer. On 17 June 2002, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily tendered her resignation from the service under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 600-8-24, for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial. 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 chain of command recommended approval of the resignation for the good of the service with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The Ad Hoc Review Board recommended that the applicant’s resignation be accepted with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 14 August 2002, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed that the applicant be discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army regulation 600-8-24 prescribes the policies and procedures governing the transfer and discharge of Army officer personnel. Chapter 3, Paragraph 3-13 outlines the rules for processing requests for resignation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the term of service under review and the issues she submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge. The applicant voluntarily requested resignation in lieu of trial by general court-martial under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 600-8-24. The appropriate authority approved the applicant's request and issuance of an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The analyst concluded that by her misconduct, the applicant diminished the overall quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge. Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, the Army Discharge Review Board is not empowered to grant compensation for unused accrued leave. The Board may only change the characterization or reason for discharge. If an applicant believes there is an error or injustice in her discharge, she then may make an application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, utilizing a DD Form 149, which can be obtained at a local military installation or from veteran’s assistance offices. Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 10 October 2008 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. 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. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army Issue a new DD Form 214 President, Army Discharge Review Board Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070016588 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages