Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 080609 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 080404 Discharge Received: Date: 080506 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial By Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Able Troop, WTB, WMRAC, Washington, DC Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 23 Current ENL Date: 050616 Current ENL Term: 02 Years 16 Weeks (The applicant's Enlisted Records Brief shows the applicant's ETS as (090213)). Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 10Mos, 21Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 10Mos, 21Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B10/Infantryman GT: 137 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Southwest Asia Combat: Iraq (060817-071029) Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR, CIB V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The applicant's record is void of the DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), however, the applicant's Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial shows that he was charged with wrongful possession/opiates, wrongful distribution/opiates, and false official statement. On 26 March 2008, 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 submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander and intermedicate commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 28 April 2008, 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. DD Form 2808 "Report of Medical Examination", dated 1 May 2008, found in the applicant's available records makes reference to in item 77 "Summary of Defects and Diagnoses" of Major Depression/PTSD, Post Concussion Syndrome, Tremor, and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD). 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 during the period of enlistment under review and the issue he submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as his 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 found that the length of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 20 October 2008 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. 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. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 2 No change 3 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) Edgar J. Yanger Issue a new DD Form 214 Colonel, U.S. Army Change Characterization to: President, Army Discharge Review Board Change Reason to: Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080009255 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages