Application Receipt Date: 070111	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

I.  Applicant Request
Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See applicant's attached 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: 021126
Discharge Received:     Date: 021220   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: B Company, 3d Battalion, 7th Infantry (Mechanized), Fort Stewart, GA 

Time Lost: Absent without leave for a total of 5 days (020823-020827).  Theapplicant returned to his unit of assignment.  Also, the applicant was reported as being absent without leave 1 day from (021001-021002).

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): The applicant makes reference to having received a Article 15 and being reduced to E1 in the "Reason and Request Information" section of his DD Form 293, however, no Article 15's were found in the available record. 

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  
Current ENL Date: 020624    Current ENL Term: 06 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 05Mos, 22Days ?????
Total Service:  03 Yrs, 05Mos, 24Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA-990622-020623/HD
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10 (Infantryman)   GT: 110   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR, IEB (The applicant makes reference to having received the OSR and AAM, however the available record is void of any documents to support his claim).
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 evidence of record shows that on 6 November 2002, the applicant was charged with going AWOL from 23 August 2002 to 28 August 2002 and 1 October 2002 to 2 October 2002, failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty X 6 28-30 September 2002 and 5-7 October 2002, and disobeying a lawful command from a noncommissioned officer (SSG) on 22 October 2002.  On 25 November 2002, 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 a 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 approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 4 December 2002, the separation authority approved the discharge with a under other than honorable conditions discharge.

      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, the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the characterization of service 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.  While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The analyst found that the length of the applicant's service and the circumstances surrounding his discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable.  

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 10 September 2007              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: Yes Girlfriend 

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted 7 additional 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 4    No change 1   - 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, hearing his testimony, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as result it is now inequitable.  The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service and his post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial 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 and voted not to change it.

Case report reviewed and verified by: , Examiner									        
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: 20 September 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE