Application Receipt Date: 070518 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: 040525 Discharge Received: Date: 040820 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: A Company, 1 Battalion, 46th Infantry Regiment, Fort Knox, KY 40121 Time Lost: Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 811124 Current ENL Date: 040108 Current ENL Term: 4 Years Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 5 Mos, 23 Days The applicant was placed on excess leave for a total of 155 days from (040319-040820) Total Service: 0 Yrs, 5 Mos, 23 Days Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E1 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Valdosta, GA 31601 Current Address: United States Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 18 March 2004, the applicant was charged with AWOL from (26 January 2004 until 16 March 2004). On 19 March 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 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 recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 20 August 2004, 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, 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 and recommends to the Board that the applicant’s service should now be described as uncharacterized. However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 5 November 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: Witnesses/Observers: None Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted two (2) documents in support of his testimony. 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 5 No change 0 - Character Change 3 No change 2 - 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 inequitable. The Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the circumstances surrounding the discharge mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to uncharacterized and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. This action entails a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to “3.” 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: Secretarial Authority under the provisions of Chapter 5, AR 635-200 Other: None 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: 16 November 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder