Applicant Name: ???? Application Receipt Date: 070917 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 submitted by the Applicant 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: 940721 Discharge Received: Date: 940811 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trail by Court Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Headquarters Company, U.S. Fort Myer, Virginia Time Lost: AWOL for 5 days (940406-940410), mode of return unknown. Total time lost 5 days. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Year/Month: 5912 HOR City, State: Baltimore MD Current ENL Date: 910308 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 04Mos, 27Days ????? Total Service: 16 Yrs, 06Mos, 25Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR 770627-780109/ NA RA 780110-800723/ HD RA 800724-850730/HD RA 850731-910307/HD Highest Grade: E-6 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 71L10/Admin Spec GT: 109 EDU: 3 yrs of college Overseas: Germany x 2, Korea Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, OSR(3), AAM (1), ARCOM, JSCM, AGCM (5), NCOPDR (2) 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 8 June 1994 the applicant was charged with AWOL (940406-940411), disobeying a lawful order from a superior commissioned officer and intent to defraud and for the procurement of lawful currency, wrongfully and unlawfully make and utter certain checks (between 931116 to 940401) from post exchange, commissary, check stop and Benchmark community bank. 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 she understood that she 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 submit a statement in her own behalf. The unit commander and intermediate commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 20 July 1994, the separation authority approved the discharge with characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. 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 military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents she submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable conditions. This recommendation was made after full consideration of her faithful and honorable service, as well as her record of misconduct. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst noted that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service and the time that has elapsed since her discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in her service record. Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable. However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable. This action entails a restoration of grade to SSG/E-6. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 1 August 2008 Location: Washington, DC 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 2 No change 3 - 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: ????? XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 1 August 2008 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070012948 ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 4 pages