Application Receipt Date: 070330 Prior Review Prior Review Date: 050912/Records I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's DD Form 293 and attached document. 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 990128 Chapter: 3 AR: 635-200 Reason: Court-Martial, Other RE: SPD: JJD Unit/Location: HHC 3rd Battalion, 325th Infantry (ABCT), APO AE 09630 Time Lost: Confinement Military Authority-49 days from (951214-960131), as a result of his special court-martial sentence. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 951214-Special Court-Martial/With intent to deceive, made a false statement, (950817), larceny of property x 2, stole a bike of a value of about $895.00, the property of AAFES, (941229), and stole a bike of a value of about $1,510.00, the property of AAFES, (950717). The applicant was sentenced to be reduced to Private/E1, forfeiture of $569.00 pay for six months, confinement for two months, and a bad conduct discharge. Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: Current ENL Date: 921029 Current ENL Term: 4 Years 17 Weeks Current ENL Service: 06 Yrs, 01 Mos, 11 Days The applicant was retained in the service 652 days for the convenience of the Government per AR 635-200. Total Service: 06 Yrs, 01 Mos, 11 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B1P Infantryman GT: 103 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Italy Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 14 December 1995, the applicant was found guilty by a Special Court-Martial of, with intent to deceive, made a false statement, 17 August 1995; larceny of property x 2, stole a bike of a value of about $895.00, the property of AAFES, 29 December 1994, and stole a bike of a value of about $1,510.00, the property of AAFES, 17 July 1995. The applicant was sentenced to be reduced to Private/E1, forfeiture of $569.00 pay for six months, confinement for two months, and a bad conduct discharge. On 9 April 1996, the sentence was approved. The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by the Court of Military Review. On 10 February 1997, the United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence. On 16 December 1998, the sentence having been affirmed pursuant to Article 71© having been complied with, the sentence was ordered to be executed. The applicant was placed on excess leave for 959 days, from 14 June 1996-28 January 1999. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3, Section IV, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review and the document he submitted, the evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martial and that the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. After a thorough review of the applicant’s record and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no cause for clemency and therefore recommends to the Board that clemency is not warranted. Therefore, the characterization of service and the reason for discharge were both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 15 October 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: ????? Witnesses/Observers: ????? Exhibits Submitted: ????? 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 0 No change 5 - 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 found no cause for clemency and therefore voted to deny relief. 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: None Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 26 October 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE