Application Receipt Date: 070404 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293 and supporting documents. 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: 960416 Discharge Received: Date: 960430 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 17th Area Support Group, APO AP 96343-5006 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 960307/General Court Martial/Indecent liberties with a child and attempted rap of a female under 16 years of age. He was sentence to be reprimanded and to be reduced to the grade of E5. Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: Current ENL Date: 930402 Current ENL Term: 04 Years The applicant extended his period of enlistment 18 months on (950324) giving him a new ETS of (981001) Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 00Mos, 29Days ????? Total Service: 10 Yrs, 03Mos, 10Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-860121-890713/HD RA-890714-930401/HD Highest Grade: E6 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 88M10 (Motor Transportation Operator) GT: 110 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Germany, Sinai, Japan Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ARCOM (3d Award), AGCM (3d Award), JSAM, AAM (3d Award), NDSM, SWAM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR (2d Award), Multinational Force and Observers Medal (2d Award) V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: See attached documents. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 4 December 1995, the applicant was charged with committing an indecent act upon the body of a female under 16 years of age, not the wife of the Soldier on or about 8 November 1995, and attempting to rape a person who had not attained the age of 16 years on or about 8 November 1995. On 8 April 1996, 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 unit commander and intermediate commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 19 April 1996, 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. The applicant has a CID Report of Investigation dated 8 January 1996, in his Official Military Personnel File. 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, documents, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The analyst does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. The analyst found that the length and quality of the applicant's service, and his post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 5 November 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 ????? No change ????? - Character Change ????? No change ????? - Reason (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation ????? 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: ????? Other: ????? RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: ????? XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: ????? Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE