Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2007/07/03 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: "While stationed at Fort Ord, CA, an incident occurred in which I tried to be a mediator, but instead ended up taking the blame for someone else's actions. In the fall 1992 a friend of mine was having marital problems with a woman that I introduced him to, so I felt kind of responsible. He had been given a STD by her. With his firearm in tow, he set out looking for the other guy. I tried to calm him down by riding with him. As we drove around, he started drinking and I saw an opportunity to get his firearm away from him, possibly stopping him from hurting or killing someone. He continued drinking and eventually passed out. I brought him back to the barracks to sleep it off and keep him out of trouble. I took the firearm and put it in the ceiling, planning on giving to him when everything blew over. The following morning however; we had a contraband inspection and the weapon was found. My so-called friend who I had known since basic training never came forward to explain why I did what I did and let me take the fall. I never wanted to be an embarrassment to the army, but that is how it all seemed to turn out. I was punished for doing what I was taught to do since basic training which is: always have your buddies back. I had his but who had mine? A rush to judgment cost me my career and in lieu of court-martial, I chose a voluntary separation." 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: 930311 Discharge Received: Date: 930420 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: For the Good of the Service/In Lieu of Trial By Court-Martail RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: A Co, 1-9 IN Bn, Fort Lewis, WA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 920115, larceny of $660 in currency, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $376 x 2 (suspended), 45 days extra duty and restriction (FG) Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Year/Month: 7110 HOR City, State: New Orleans, LA Current ENL Date: 900724 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 08Mos, 27Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 08Mos, 27Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B10/Infantry GT: 95 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR, NDSM V. Post-Discharge Activity Post Service Accomplishments: None listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 11 March 1993, the applicant was charged with theft of a semi-automatic pistol valued at more than $100 and with a violation of a lawful general regulation by being improperly in possession of a privately owned firearm (930228). On 15 March 1993, 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 disapproval of the Chapter 10 request and that the applicant be tried by a court martial empowered to issue a bad conduct discharge. On 26 March 1993, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request 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 issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 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 offenses under the UCMJ. The analyst noted that 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 that prior to requesting discharge. Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 27 June 2008 Location: Washington, D.C. 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 1 No change 4 - 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 and voted to deny relief. X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 30 June 2008 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070009435 ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 4 pages