Application Receipt Date: 060420 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 930120 Chapter: 5 AR: 635-120 Reason: Conduct Triable by Court-Martial RE: SPD: DFS Unit/Location: Company D, 2d Battalion, 69th Armory Regiment, 3d Brigade, 24the Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Benning, GA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 640510 Current ENL Date: 881029 Current ENL Term: Indef Years ????? Current ENL Service: 04 Yrs, 02Mos, 22Days ????? Total Service: 04 Yrs, 07Mos, 11Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR-880610-881028/NA Highest Grade: 1LT Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 12A00 (Armor Officer) GT: 127 EDU: BA Degree Overseas: Kuwait Combat: SWA (900830-910401) Decorations/Awards: BS, AAM (2nd Award), NDSM, SWASM (2 bronze service stars), ASR, KLM-SA, V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: See attached supporting documents. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 6 October 1992, the applicant was charged with the wrongful possession of approximately 5.50 grams of marijuana on or about 26 April and 20 May 1992, wrongful introduction of approximately 5.50 grams of marijuana onto a military installation, wrongful import of approximately 5.50 grams of marijuana into the customs territory of the United States (Fort Benning), commission of a felony, and making a false statement. The applicant voluntarily tendered his resignation from the Army for the good of the Service under the provisions of Chapter 5, AR 635-120. The chain of commands recommendation is not in the avalible records. The Ad Hoc Review Board recommended that the applicant’s resignation for the good of the service be accepted. On 15 December 1992, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Review Board that resignation for the good of the service be accepted, and directed that the applicant be discharged from the Army with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army regulation 635-120, in effect at the time, prescribed the procedures for the resignation of USAR commission officers on active duty. Chapter 5 allowed for an officer to submit a resignation for the good of the Service (RFGOS) in lieu of court-martial. An officer separated under this paragraph normally receives characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions or under other than honorable conditions. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After careful review of all the applicant's military records of service during the term under review and the issues 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 now inequitable. The overall length and quality of the applicant's service, his post service accomplishments, and the time that has elasped since his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. However, the analyst determined the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 070110 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA 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 After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the term of service 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 partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. 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: Eric S. Moore, 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: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 070116 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060005711 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages