Application Receipt Date: 061211 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None 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: 040427 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu Of Trail By Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: C Company 1st Bn 8th Infantry Fort Carson, CO 80913-2544 Time Lost: NIF Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 741025 Current ENL Date: 020821 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 08 Mos, 07 Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 08 Mos, 07 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B10 Infantryman GT: 94 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: SWA Combat: Kuwait/Iraq (030806-040403) Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, CIB, EIB 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 specific facts and circumstances leading to the applicant’s discharge from the Army are not contained in the available records. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant's signature. His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial court-martial, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS ( i.e., in lieu of trial by court-martial) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "4." Evidence of record shows that on 27 April 2004, Orders 118-0017, DA, HQ, 7th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective date: 27 April 2004. 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 available records for the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst recommend that relief be denied in this case. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. The analyst noted that the applicant’s record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), with a punitive discharge. Procedurally, the applicant was required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily, and in writing, request 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. In the absence of information to the contrary, it is presumed that all 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 would have been aware of that prior to requesting discharge. Therefore, 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: 15 May 2007 Location: Tampa, FL Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: yes [redacted] Witnesses/Observers: Wife Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted four additional documents in support of his personal appeareance hearing. 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, hearing his testimony, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, the Board found that the applicant’s combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge process mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable, voted not to change it. This action entails a restoration of grade to PFC/E3. 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: PFC/E3 XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 21 May 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060017132 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages