Application Receipt Date: 070131	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents.

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: 051019
Discharge Received:     Date: 051222   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: Company E, 2nd Battalion, 44th Air Defense Artillery, Fort Campbell, KY 42223-5000 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:    
Current ENL Date: 020501    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 03  Yrs, 07 Mos, 22 Days ?????
Total Service:  03  Yrs, 07 Mos, 22 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 14S10 Avenger Crewmember   GT: 90   EDU: HS Grad    Overseas: SouthWest Asia   Combat: Iraq (030305-040221)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ICM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSB (2)
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 19 October 2005, the applicant was charged with stealing an automatic teller machine/debit card, of some value, the property of a CPL, (19 November 2004), steal United States currency from an ATM machine of Bank of America x 5, (19 November 2004), of a value of about $500.00, the property of a CPL; (23 November 2004), of a value of about $300.00, the property of a CPL; (29 November 2004), of a value of about $500.00, the property of a CPL; (1 December 2004), of a value of about $500.00, the property of a CPL; (2 December 2004), of a value of about $500.00, the property of a CPL; steal United States currency from an ATM machine of the Langley Federal Credit Union,  (26 November 2004), of a value of about $300.00, the property of a CPL; steal United States currency at or near Hanover, Maryland, (26 November 2004), of a value of about $200.00, the property of a CPL; steal United States currency at or near Columbia, Maryland, (27 November 2004), of a value of about $200.00, the property of a CPL; steal United States currency from an ATM machine of the Nashville Post Office Credit Union, (1 December 2004), of a value of about $500.00, the property of a CPL; steal United States currency at or near Chattanoga, TN, (4 December 2004), of a value of about $400.00, the property of a CPL.  On 5 December 2005, 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 approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 14 December 2005, 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.
      
      The applicant has a CID Report of Investigation dated 6 May 2005, in his Official Military Personnel File. 

      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 careful review of all the applicant's military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst recommend that the applicant's request for an upgrade of his characterization of service be denied.  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 offense under UCMJ.  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 this prior to requesting discharge.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's isse; however, even though a single incident, the analyst concluded that the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization of service.  Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brings discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were 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: Yes [redacted]

Witnesses/Observers: Yes Mother 

Exhibits Submitted: No

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 3    No change 2   - 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 does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The Board found that the length of the applicant’s service; to include his combat service, 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.  This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E4. 

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: None
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: SPC/E4

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