Application Receipt Date: 060725 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293. 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: 050304 Discharge Received: Date: 050602 Chapter: 3-13 AR: 600-8-24 Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial RE: SPD: DFS Unit/Location: HHC 530th Supply & Service Battalion, Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000 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: 790314 Current ENL Date: 010527/OAD Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 04 Yrs, 00 Mos, 06 Days ????? Total Service: 05 Yrs, 06 Mos, 27 Days ????? Previous Discharges: ARNG-970204-980830/NA USAR-980831-010526/NA Highest Grade: 03 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 92D5P Aerial Delivery Material GT: NA EDU: NIF Overseas: Korea/SouthWest Asia Combat: Iraq (030302-030511), (030902-040223), and (041205-050127) Decorations/Awards: BSM, ARCOM (2), AAM (2), NDSM, ICM (3), GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states she has a contracting job with Kellog, Brown, and Root in Iraq. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 22 February 2005, the applicant was charged with wrongful use of marijuana, on or between 1 November 2004 and 1 December 2004. On 23 February 2005, the applicant voluntarily tendered her resignation in lieu of trial by a General Court Martial under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 3-13. The applicant was advised of her rights and understood that if her resignation was accepted, she could receive any type of discharge as determined by Headquarters DA. On 4 March 2005, the Acting Commander, recommended approval of the applicant's resignation in lieu of trial by a General Court-Martial, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The Ad Hoc Review Board met. On 10 May 2005, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) accepted the applicant's resignation, approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board, and directed that the applicant be separated from the Army with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The analyst noted that the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards), directed that the applicant be separated from the Army with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. However, the applicant's DD Form 214 shows that upon separation from the service, she received an honorable discharge. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army regulation 600-8-24 prescribes the policies and procedures governing the transfer and discharge of Army officer personnel. Chapter 3, Paragraph 3-13 outlines the rules for processing requests for resignation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After careful review of all the applicant's military records for the term of service under review, the analyst recommends that a change to the narrative reason for separation be denied in this case. The evidence of record shows that the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 3-13, in lieu of trial by a General Court-Martial with a characterization of service of honorable. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct. The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Accordingly, the analyst determined that the applicant's narrative reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 25 July 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 0 No change 0 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - 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 narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 1 August 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060010386 Applicant Name: Ms. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages