PART II - APPLICATION DATA
(Note: Part I deleted under the Privacy Act on Reading Room copy)
1. Character of Discharge: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
2. Date of discharge (or REFRAD): 920115
3. Authority for separation:
a. Regulation: Chapter 10, AR 635-200
b. Reason: For the Good of the Service-In Lieu of Court-Martial
4. Prior review(s): NONE
PART III - SERVICE HISTORY
SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review
1. Service data: 2. Awards and
decorations:
AAM
a. Period entered for: 5 Years NDSM
b. Entry date: 890428 SWASM
c. Age: 20 Years DOB: 681226 ASR
d. Educational level: HS Grad
e. Aptitude area score:
GT: 91 3. Highest grade
achieved:
f. Length of Service: E3
2 Years 8 Months 13 Days
4. Performance evaluations:
NONE
PART III - SERVICE HISTORY
SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review - Continued
5. Periods of unauthorized absence: NONE
Status Inclusive dates
AWOL
Mil conf
Civil conf
Other
6. Nonjudicial punishment: NONE
Date Offense(s)
_________________________________
Memorandum of Reprimand:
Date Offense(s)
910808 Driving while intoxicated (910726)(GOMOR)
7. Court-Martial data: NONE
a. SCM:
Date Offense(s)
b. SPCM:
Date Offense(s)
c. GCM:
Date Offense(s)
8. Remarks: NONE
SECTION B - Prior Service Data
NONE
Other discharge(s):
Service From To Type Discharge
PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW
SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT
l. Facts and Circumstances:
a. The evidence of record shows that on 30 September 1991, the
applicant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while drunk (26 July
1991); unlawfully striking a SPC in the mouth with his fist (9 August
1991); and committing an assault on a SPC by punching and kicking him and
thereby intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm upon him. On 31
October 1991, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily
requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter l0, 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 and intermediate
commanders’ recommendations are not in the available records; however, on 4
November 1991, the proper legal authority confirmed in writing that he
personally contacted the commanders who recommended approval of the
applicant’s request, with issuance of an under other than honorable
conditions discharge. On 5 November 1991, the separation authority
approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions
discharge.
b. On 15 January 1992, the applicant was discharged. At the time of
discharge, the applicant had completed 2 years, 8 months, and 18 days of
active military service in the period under review.
2. Legal/Regulatory Basis for Separation Action: Army Regulation 635-200
sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
Chapter l0 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 requests 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
UOHC is normally considered appropriate.
SECTION B-APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
1. Issue(s) of propriety and/or equity submitted by applicant or counsel.
As stated on applicant’s DD Form 293.
2. Exhibit(s) submitted:
A-1: DD Form 293, undated, with eight (8) enclosures.
A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE
B-l: Other Documents: NONE
PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW (CONTINUED)
SECTION C - Medical and/or Legal Advisory Opinion
Referred to ( ) Medical Advisor ( ) Legal Advisor
a. Medical prehearing comments (if applicable):
b. Legal prehearing comments (if applicable):
PART V - SUMMARY OF HEARING
SECTION A-Attendees and exhibits
1. Review/hearing information:
a. Type requested:
( X ) Records review ( ) Hearing
b. Type Held:
( X )Records review ( ) Hearing
( ) Tender Offer
c. Review/hearing location and date: Washington, DC on 29 September
2004.
d. Appearance by:
Applicant ( ) Yes ( X ) No
Counsel ( ) Yes ( X ) No
e. Applicant testified: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
f. Counsel presentation: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
g. Witness(es) testified: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
2. Exhibit(s) submitted at hearing:
PART VI - ISSUES AND FINDINGS
1. a. Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity:
( X ) Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A
of this case report and directive.
( ) Revised issue(s) furnished in writing by applicant as
follows:
( X ) Additional issue(s) identified during review/hearing as
follows:
Board Issue: (2) The characterization of service is too harsh.
b. Request: ( X ) Recharacterization ( ) Change of Reason
2. Finding(s), conclusion(s), and reason(s) for the Board's decision(s) on
issues of propriety and/or equity:
a. Propriety: The applicant has not submitted an issue of
propriety and the ADRB has not otherwise relied upon an
issue of propriety to change the discharge.
b. Equity: The parenthetical number(s) below correspond(s) to
the issue number(s) on the DD Form 293, or in Part VI,
Paragraph 1, above.
(2) The issue is accepted. The Board carefully examined the
applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review.
There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as
well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the
seriousness of the offenses. The Board does not condone the applicant’s
misconduct; however, determined that the characterization of service is now
inequitable. The Board found that the applicant’s misconduct was mitigated
by the overall length and quality of his service, the nature of the
offenses, and the time that has elapsed since the applicant’s discharge.
Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of
characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The
applicant, by his misconduct, diminished the quality of his service below
that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The Board determined that the
reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change
it.
(1) See Paragraph 3, below.
3. Response(s) to item(s) not addressed as decisional issue(s):
Inasmuch as the Board voted to grant the full relief requested,
response to the remaining issue is neither required nor rendered.
PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION A - Conclusions/Decisions/Vote
1. Board conclusion(s):
The discharge was:
( X ) Proper.
( ) Improper as to characterization. Change characterization to
.
( ) Improper as to reason. Change reason to
under .
( ) Equitable.
( X ) Inequitable as to characterization. Change characterization to
General, Under Honorable Conditions.
( ) Inequitable as to reason. Change reason to
under .
( ) Both proper and equitable, but characterization/reason for
separation cited was an administrative/clerical error and should
be changed to under
.
2. Voting record: Change No Change
Reason 0 5
Characterization 5 0
The names and votes of the members of the Board are recorded in
Part IX of this document and can be obtained by writing to the address
below. The request must contain the CASE NO. located in the upper right
corner of this document.
Department of the Army Review Boards Agency
ATTN: Promulgation Team
1901 South Bell Street, 2nd Floor
Arlington, VA 22202-4508
3. Minority views: NONE
PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION B - Verification and Authentication
Case report reviewed and verified
MR. RIVERA
Case Reviewing Official
PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATION
SECTION A - DIRECTIVE
TO: ARBA Support Division-St Louis Date: 1 October 2004
The Army Discharge Review Board, established under the provisions of
Section 30, Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 22 June 1944 and codified as
Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant
named in Part I directs that the ARBA Support Division-St Louis issue a new
DD Form 2l4 to the applicant which reflects the following directed
change(s):
( X ) Change characterization of discharge to General, Under
Honorable Conditions.
( X ) Other (see remarks below).
Remarks: This action entails a restoration of grade to E3.
SECTION B - CERTIFICATION
Approval Authority:
ROBERT L. HOUSE
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge
Review Board
Official:
MARY E. SHAW
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
EXHIBITS:
A - Application for review of discharge C - Other
B - Material submitted by applicant
INDEX RECORD:
AR Number: 2004102898 INDEX NUMBERS: A9236
Date of Review: 040929 A9218
Character of Service: UD A0113
Date of Discharge: 920115
Authority: AR 635-200 C10
Reason: A7000
Results of Board Action/
Vote/Affirmation: GD 5-0 A
PART IX - VOTING RECORD
Name Reason Characterization
CHANGE NC HON UHC NC
UNCHAR
1. Mbr X X
2. Mbr X X
3. Mbr X X
4. Mbr X X
5. PO X X
ARMY | DRB | CY1998 | 1998012743
The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. ADRIANCE Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority:THOMAS J. ALLEN Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board AR Number: 1998012743 INDEX...
ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 99031553
Board issue: (2) The narrative reason for discharge is inequitable.b. While the Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct, it determined that the characterization of service was inequitable because the applicant’s overall quality of service did not warrant the granting of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. ( X ) Change reason and authority for discharge to Misconduct, AR 635-200 .
ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | 2003091109
Evidence of record shows that on 30 March 1992, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l4, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—pattern of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. ( X ) Change reason and authority for discharge to Misconduct, Chapter 14, AR 635-200. EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted by applicant
ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | AR1999024778
A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE B-l: Other Documents: NONE PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW (CONTINUED) Block 26: (Separation Code): JKQ.Block 27 : (Reentry Code) : RE-3.SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority: THOMAS J. ALLEN Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board AR Number: 1999024778 INDEX NUMBERS: A0156 Date of Review: 990517 A9217 Character of Service: HD A9405 Date of Discharge: 970512 A9445 Authority: AR 635-200 C14 Reason: A6730 Results of Board...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | AR20050002624
The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and requested appearance before a board of officers. Army regulations mandate that only an honorable characterization of service may be awarded to an individual upon completion of his or her enlistment. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified Ms. McKim-Spilker Case Reviewing Official PART VIII -...
ARMY | DRB | CY2002 | 2002077942
On 14 February 1991, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity: ( X ) Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A of this case report and directive. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. RON...
ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | AR1999016028
The Board noted the contentions of the applicant and his counsel, that due to the circumstances of the case the UOHC discharge was too harsh; and that based on the applicant’s overall record of service the UOHC discharge was inequitable. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR....
ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | AR2003095880
The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general discharge. On 20 June 1991, the applicant was discharged. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. RIVERA Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATION SECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S....
ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | 2003083885
Prior review(s): NONE PART III - SERVICE HISTORY SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review 1. Chapter l0 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. EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted by applicant
ARMY | DRB | CY2001 | 2001051984
On 6 May 1991, the applicant was discharged. Chapter l0 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. It 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 that...