Application Receipt Date: 060518 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: 040428 Discharge Received: Date: 040709 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: D Company, 2nd Battalion, 58th Infantry Regiment, Fort Benning, GA Time Lost: AWOL 34 day 040105-040208, applicant surrendered to military authority. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 840128 Current ENL Date: 031014 Current ENL Term: 03 Years 19 Weeks Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 07Mos, 21Days (Includes 149 days of excess leave 040212-040709) Total Service: 00 Yrs, 07Mos, 21Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 111 EDU: 1 yr Coll Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: States that since his discharge he has earned 9 units from Fresno City College, for a total of 30 units, that he has held a job for the past two years, and that for the past seven months he has been volunteering for Fresno's police department. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with going AWOL from 5 January 2004 to 8 February 2004. On 12 February 2004, 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 a 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. On 28 April 2004, the unit commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 10 June 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions discharge and directed that he be reduced to private E1. 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 that the characterization of service granted is inequitable. The analyst noted that the applicant was in entry-level status when he returned from a period of AWOL (i.e., he had completed less than 180 days of continuous active duty). The applicant was charged with AWOL and while still in an entry-level status voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In essence the applicant’s separation action was initiated while the applicant was in an entry-level status and command had the option to characterize his service under other than honorable conditions or to describe his service as uncharacterized. Notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant’s discharge, the analyst concluded that the applicant’s service should now be described as uncharacterized. However, the reason for discharge remains both both proper and equitable. This action entails a restoration of grade to private first class/E3. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 21 March 2007 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 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: 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: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 30 March 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060007089 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages