Application Receipt Date: 060508 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293; the applicant has stated in essence that his record of misconduct was an isolated incident in an othewise respectable career. 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: 030212 Discharge Received: Date: 030227 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Cour-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Group Support Company, 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Campbell, Kentucky 42223 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: 670920 Current ENL Date: 011011 Current ENL Term: Indefinate Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 5 Mos, 20 Days ????? Total Service: 16 Yrs, 10 Mos, 4 Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR-860219-860423/NA RA-860424-900304/HD RA-900305-940425/HD RA-940426-011010/HD Highest Grade: SFC/E-7 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 75H1P, Personnel Sergeant GT: 114 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Bosnia (970427-971029), (990228-990820) Combat: Bosnia Decorations/Awards: AAM (3), ARCOM (3), GCML (5), NDSM (2), AFEM, AFSM, NCOPDR w/#3, NATO M, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: Letters of reference and character (9), Education and Certificates (4), BS Social Psychology, Military letters of reference (4), numerous military documents pertaining to service and evaluations. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that the Staff Judge Advocate Memorandum indicates that the applicant was charged with four (4) specifications of larceny, one (1) specification of attempted larcenty, and five (5) specifications of forgery. The applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial is not part of the available records and the analyst presumed government regularity in the dischage process. On 12 February 2003, the Staff Judge Advocate Memorandum shows that the applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the request for discharge with issuance of an Under Other than Honorable Conditions discharge. On 18 February 2003, 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, and the issues he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The applicant consulted with defense counsel, and voluntarily in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated or lesser-included offenses under the UCMJ. The analyst noted that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 061204 Location: Washington, D.C. 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 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 period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. John Zangas, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: None RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 7 December 2006 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060006704 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 5 pages