Applicant Name: ???? Application Receipt Date: 080717 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 030424 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: B Co, 1st Bn, 41st Inf, Ft. Riley, KS 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: 23 Current ENL Date: 010711 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 9Mos, 13Days ????? Total Service: 4 Yrs, 9Mos, 15Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 980710-010710/HD Highest Grade: E6 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B/Infantryman GT: 108 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Korea Combat: Kuwait (020501-021030) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, AFEM, ASR, OSR, GWOTSM, KDSM,EIB V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Oklahoma City, OK Post Service Accomplishments: None listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 19 February 2003, the applicant was charged with conspiracy to commit burglary with intent to commit larceny (020410); willfully and wrongfully damage a kitchen window (020410); unlawfully break and enter a dwelling house with intent to commit larceny (020410); steal personal property in the value of $2250.00 (020410)); and wrongfully solicit a follow Soldier to burglarize the dwelling house of another Soldier (04201). On 3 April 2003, 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 he understood that he 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander and intermediate commander were both deployed to the Persian Gulf Region and unavailable for recommendation. On 15 April 2003, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. The record contains a CID report dated 9 July 2002. 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 available military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents submitted with the application, 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 the former Soldier’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the 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 inequitable. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst noted that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include the combat service, mitigated the discrediting entries in the service record. Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable. This action entails a restoration of grade to SSG/E-6. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 090506 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: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080012440 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages