Application Receipt Date: 060726 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 with nine (9) attachments. 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: 051031 Discharge Received: Date: 051221 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: 82nd Replacement Detachment, 82nd Paratrooper Support Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC 28310 Time Lost: AWOL, for a total of 190 days from (13 April 2005 to 19 October 2005). He surrendered to the military authorities at Fort Sill, OK, and was transferred to the 82nd SSB, Fort Bragg, NC 28307. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 821012 Current ENL Date: 040921 Current ENL Term: 3 Years 22 Weeks Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 8 Mos, 24 Days ????? Total Service: 0 Yrs, 8 Mos, 24 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11C10 Indirect Fire Infantryman GT: 97 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: GWOTSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 31 October 2005, the applicant was charged with AWOL from (13 April 2005 to 20 October 2005). On 16 November 2005, 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 and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 7 December 2005, 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 for the period of enlistment under review, the issue and supporting documents he submitted, the analyst found a mitigating factor that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to general, under honorable conditions. This recommendation was made after a full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as his record of misconduct. The analyst does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the characterization of service was too harsh and as a result, it is inequitable. The analyst found that the circumstances surrounding the AWOL, (i.e., medical and family problems) mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 18 July 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 0 No change 5 - 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 discharge was both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Ron Williams, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: N/A Other: N/A RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: N/A XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 31 July 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060010454 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 6 pages