Application Receipt Date: 070817 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 with eighteen (18) attachments and a binder, with additional 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: 060125 Discharge Received: Date: 060215 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Company D, 1st Battalion, 222nd Aviation Regiment, Fort Eustis, VA 23604 Time Lost: AWOL, for a total of 133 days from (1 September 2005 to 11 January 2006). He surrendered to the military authorities at Fort Eustis, VA, and was transferred to Fort Knox, KY 40121. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: Current ENL Date: 050510 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 4 Mos, 25 Days The applicant was placed on excess leave for a total of 26 days from (060121-060215). Total Service: 0 Yrs, 4 Mos, 25 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E1 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 115 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: See DD Form 293 with attachments. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on19 January 2006, the applicant was charged with AWOL from (1 September 2005 until 12 January 2006). On 19 January 2006, 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 recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 30 January 2006, 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, issue and the supporting documents he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the characterization of service to uncharacterized, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as his record of misconduct. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The analyst found that the circimstances surrounding the AWOL, and the supporting documentation substantiating the applicant's reason for going AWOL mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 12 September 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: N/A Witnesses/Observers: N/A Exhibits Submitted: N/A 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 5 No change 0 - Character Change 5 No change 0 - 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, 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. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief by changing the characterization of service to uncharacterized and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority This action entails a change to the reentry eligibiltiy (RE) code to "1." 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: Secretarial Authority under Chapter 5, AR 635-200. 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: 14 September 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE