Application Receipt Date: 070111 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 021126 Discharge Received: Date: 021220 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: B Company, 3d Battalion, 7th Infantry (Mechanized), Fort Stewart, GA Time Lost: Absent without leave for a total of 5 days (020823-020827). Theapplicant returned to his unit of assignment. Also, the applicant was reported as being absent without leave 1 day from (021001-021002). Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): The applicant makes reference to having received a Article 15 and being reduced to E1 in the "Reason and Request Information" section of his DD Form 293, however, no Article 15's were found in the available record. Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: Current ENL Date: 020624 Current ENL Term: 06 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 05Mos, 22Days ????? Total Service: 03 Yrs, 05Mos, 24Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-990622-020623/HD Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B10 (Infantryman) GT: 110 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR, IEB (The applicant makes reference to having received the OSR and AAM, however the available record is void of any documents to support his claim). V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: 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 November 2002, the applicant was charged with going AWOL from 23 August 2002 to 28 August 2002 and 1 October 2002 to 2 October 2002, failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty X 6 28-30 September 2002 and 5-7 October 2002, and disobeying a lawful command from a noncommissioned officer (SSG) on 22 October 2002. On 25 November 2002, 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 a 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 unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 4 December 2002, the separation authority approved the discharge with a under other than honorable conditions discharge. 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, the issue 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. This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as his record of misconduct. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The analyst found that the length of the applicant's service and the circumstances surrounding his discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 10 September 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: Yes Girlfriend Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted 7 additional documents, in support of his testimony. VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change 4 No change 1 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - Reason (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as result it is now inequitable. The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service and his post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: , Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 20 September 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE