Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/06/16 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 149 and attached documents submitted by the applicant in lieu of DD Form 293. 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: 060106 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: A Co, 1-9th FA Bn, APO AE 09380 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: 20 Current ENL Date: 040218 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 10Mos, 19Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 10Mos, 19Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 13D10 Field Artillery Automation GT: 110 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Southwest Asia Combat: Iraq (Dates NIF) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, CAB V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: South Bend, IN Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 17 November 2005, the applicant was charged with disrespectful in language and deportment toward a SGT (051015), disrespectful in language and deportment toward a 1SG (051015), and wrongfully communicating to a SSG a threat that a SGT is going to die and he was going to make sure of it (051015). On 27 November 2005, 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 did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 2 December 2009 (i.e., 2006), the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request 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 he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as 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. While the applicant’s misconduct is not condoned, the analyst found that the length and quality of the applicant’s service; to include his combat service, mitigated the discrediting entries in the service record. 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 analyst determined that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, 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: 22 December 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 0 No change 5 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: None ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090011092 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages