Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/12/05	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that she requests an upgrade of her discharge to fully honorable.  She contends her discharge is improper because the characterization of service was changed without her knowledge.  She contends she performed her duties in a military manner, had a distinguished career of service and no disciplinary issues.  

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	NIF Date: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 000826   Chapter: 2    AR: 600-43
Reason: Conscientious Objector	   RE:     SPD: KCM   Unit/Location: Schofield Barracks Military Police Company, 25th Military Police Bn, Schofield Barracks, HI 

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:  18
Current ENL Date: 960912    Current ENL Term: 05 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03  Yrs, 11  Mos, 15  Days ?????
Total Service:  		04  Yrs, 10  Mos, 19   Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR-951018-960911/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 95B10 Military Police   GT: 122   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Hawaii   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AGCM, ASR, OSR 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:     
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation
       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 20 September 1999, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of AR 600-43, as a conscientious objector.  In accordance with Chapter 2, AR 600-43, an investigating officer was appointed to determine whether the applicant met the requirements for discharge as a conscientious objector.  On 24 November 1999, the applicant was notified of her pending conscientious objector hearing as mandated by regulation to present evidence in support of the applicant's claim and the applicant voluntarily waived her hearing. 
       
       
       On 29 November 1999, the investigating officer sustained the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 600-43.  On 15 March 2000, the court-martial convening authority recommended approval of the applicant's request and forwarded the request to the DA Conscientious Objector Review Board (DACORB) for approval. 
       
       On 5 July 2000, the DACORB approved the applicant's request and directed the separation in accordance with AR 600-43, as a conscientious objector.  Characterization of service was to be determined by the applicant's command.  
       
       On 8 August 2000, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       
       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 600-43, sets the for policy, criteria, responsibilities, and procedures to classify and dispose of military personnel who claim conscientious objection to participation in war in any form or to the bearing of arms.  An honorable or a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service may be given. 

       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, the issues and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found several mitigating factors which would merit an  upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to fully honorable.  The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service is too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The analyst determined that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service; there is no derogatory information in the applicant's file (i.e., nonjudicial punishment, negative counseling statements, or administrative reprimands) warrants an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to fully honorable.  However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable.      

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 30 May 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel:  [redacted]

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated (111130); Memorandum, Characterization of Service, General, Under Honorable Conditions, dated (000808);  DD Form 214, dated (000826); and a DD Form 257A, General Discharge Certificate, dated (000826).

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the analyst's recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to show that her characterization of service was inequitable.  Army Regulations stipulate that the quality of service will be determined according to standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty.  The applicant contends she was promoted to SPC/E-4 after disclosing her intent to apply for status as a conscietious objector (CO).  However, the record shows she had already been promoted to SPC/E-4 on 1 October 1998 and she did not apply for CO status until September of 1999.  In view of the foregoing, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.  



        
IX.  Board Decision						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 2    No change 3
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)

X.  Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to: 
Change Reason to: No Change
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:



Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder
?????


























Legend:
AWOL    	Absent Without Leave		GCM   General Court Martial	NA   Not applicable			SCM	Summary Court Martial
BCD   	Bad Conduct Discharge	GD      General Discharge	NIF   Not in the file			SPCM	Special Court Martial
CG 	Company Grade Article 15	HD      Honorable Discharge	OAD   Ordered to Active Duty		UNC	Uncharacterized Discharge  
DD 	Dishonorable Discharge	HS       High School Graduate	OMPF   Official Military Personnel File	UOTH  	Under Other Than Honorable 
FG	Field Grade Article 15		IADT   Initial Active Duty Training	RE     Reentry Code				Conditions 
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20110024117
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 3 pages