Application Receipt Date: 06081 Prior Review Prior Review Date: 990324/Records I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached 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: 980501 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: B Battery, 3rd Battalion, 7th Field Artillery, Schofield Barracks, HI 96857 Time Lost: AWOL-6 days from (980121-980126), applicant was apprehended. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 980105-Violated a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the age of twenty-one, (971208), (Company Grade). Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 761228 Current ENL Date: 950906 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 07 Mos, 20 Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 07 Mos, 20 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 134B10 Cannon Crewmember GT: 117 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Hawaii Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, ASR, C/Ach (2) 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 23 January 1998, the applicant was charged with AWOL from 21 January 1998 until 22 January 1998, wrongfully possess five grams of marijuana, on or about 22 January 1998, and wrongfully communicate a threat to a CPT and a 1SG, on or about 22 January 1998. On 4 February 1998, the applicant was charged again with AWOL from 24 January 1998 until 25 January 1998, and 26 January 1998 until 27 January 1998, having received a lawful command from a CPT, willfully disobeyed the same, or about 24 January 1998, having received a lawful order from a SSG, willfully disobeyed the same, on or about 24 January 1998, and steal sneakers and a large silver ring, of a value less than $100.00, the property of a PVT,on or about 26 January 1998. On 19 March 1998, 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander recommended approval of a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The intermediate and senior intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 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. The applicant has an Administrative Letter of Reprimand dated 8 August 1998, in his Official Military Personnel File, for driving or being in physical control of a vehicle when his blood alcohol content was .108%. 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 careful review of all the applicant's military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicant's request for an upgrade of his characterization of service be denied. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense 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 offense under UCMJ. 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 this prior to requesting discharge. The analyst determined that 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: 19 September 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: ????? Witnesses/Observers: ????? Exhibits Submitted: ????? 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, hearing his testimony, 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. 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: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: ????? Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060011616 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages