Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/06/11 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 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: 070306 Discharge Received: Date: 070625 Chapter: 14, Sec II AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct (Civil Conviction) RE: SPD: JKB Unit/Location: 116th MP Company, Ft Riley, KS Time Lost: Civilian confinement 287 days, (060919-070625) 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: 28 Current ENL Date: 051220 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 02Mos, 17Days ????? Total Service: 5 Yrs, 04Mos, 16Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 010503-051219/HD RA 950712-951215/UNC ARNG 961029-971028/HD Highest Grade: E5 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 31B Military Police; 13B Cannon Crewmember GT: 118 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Korea Combat: Iraq (051206-060606) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM x4, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 22 September 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Section II, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—in the he was found guilty of multiple offenses of Sodomy and Sexual Abuse, with an other than honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 6 March 2006 the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon his receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions. The applicant did not submit a statement on his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 30 April 2007, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. On 18 May 2007, the administrative separation board convened. The applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended that the applicant be discharged with issuance of a character of service of under other than honorable conditions discharge. The separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 of this regulation establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, however, a general under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available military records for the period of enlistment under review, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to general, under honorable conditions. The analyst does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the characterization of service is too harsh. The applicant's misconduct was mitigated by service of sufficient length, merit and combat to warrant a partial upgrade of the discharge being reviewed as demonstrated by the awards in the service record. However, the applicant, by his misconduct diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s characterization of service be partially upgraded to general under honorable conditions. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 20 March 2009 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 2 No change 3 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army X. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080009283 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 pages