Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/04/19 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant 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? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 030918 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: C Co, 704th DSB, DSC, 4th Inf Div (Mech), Tikrit, Iraq 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 ENL Date: 020107 Current ENL Term: 03 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 08Mos, 12Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 08Mos, 12Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 63H10/Track Veh Repairer GT: NIF EDU: GED Overseas: Southwest Asia Combat: Iraq (Period of service not found in the available records). Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 6 August 2003, the applicant was charged with committing an assault on another Soldier by pointing at him with a dangerous weapon, to wit: a loaded firearm 29 June 2003. On 8 August 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 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 submit a statement in her own behalf. The applicant's chain of command's recommendations are not contained in the available record and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process. On 16 August 2003, 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 a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents she submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would warrant a upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. While, the analyst does not condone the applicant’s misconduct, there was a full consideration of all service including the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service is too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The analyst found that the applicant's failure to perform in accordance with Army standards was mitigated by service of sufficient length and quality to warrant an upgrade of the discharge being reviewed. Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that relief be granted in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable. This action entails a restoration of grade to PFC/E-3. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 10 August 2009 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: Mr. W/Battle Buddy Exhibits Submitted: None VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh and as a result, it is inequitable. The Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the length of the applicant’s service to include her combat service, mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. This action entails a restoration of grade to PFC/E3. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 5 No change 0 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: PFC/E-3 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090008523 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages