Application Receipt Date: 051228

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DFD Form 293 and attached supporting 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: NIF
Discharge Received:     Date: 050822
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location:

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:  790603
Current ENL Date: 040524    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ext 5
months/(990721)
Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 02Mos, 28 Days      
Total Service:  7 Yrs, 09 Mos, 03 Days      
Previous Discharges: RA 971120-000622/HD
                                      RA 000623-040523/HD
Highest Grade: E6
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No
MOS: 11B3P Infantryman   GT: 111   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Hawaii
Combat: Afghanistan (020715-030210)/Iraq (030831-040402)
Decorations/Awards: PH (2), ARCOM (2), AAM, AGCM (2), NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM,
NCOPDR w/2, ASR, OSR, CIB
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record:
Current Address
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant has been employed by Alutiiq-
Wackenhut Security Services since May 2006 and participated in operation
Fort Bragg Security for the President of the United States.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      Evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged on 23 June
2005, did between on or about (041101) and (050430), violate a general
regulation, AR 600-20, Army Command Policy by wrongfully compromising, or
appearing to compromise, the intergrity of supervisory authority or the
chain of command; and involving, or appearing to involve, the improper use
of rank or position for personal gain; and being indebted to a PFC, in the
sum of $630.00 for money borrowed, which became due and payable on or about
(050131), did from (050131) to (050622), dishonorably fail to pay just
debt.  On                   19 July 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 entire chain of command recommended approval of the
applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial with an
other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 9 August 2005, the
separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge in lieu
of trial by court-martial and directed he be discharged from the Army with
a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.
The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.

      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 independent evidence 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 now inequitable.  While the
applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst found that the overall
length and quality of the applicant's service to include his combat
service; and his post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting
entry in his service record.  However, the analyst determined that the
narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable.  This action
entails a restoration of grade to SSG/E6.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing:                  Date: 061101
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA

Exhibits Submitted: NA



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     No change    (Character)
                                        Change     No change    (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 and considering the analyst’s
recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was
inequitable.  The Board found that the overall length and quality of the
applicant's service to include his combat service, and the circumstances
surrounding the discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service
record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an
upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable and a change
to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.  This
action entails a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to "1" and
restoration of grade to SSG/E6.
















Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner

X.  Board Action Directed
No Change
Issue a new DD Form 214
Change Characterization to:
Change Reason to:  Secretarial Authority under provisions of Chapter 5, AR
635-200.
Other: NA
RE Code:
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: SSG/E6

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority:

ROBERT L. HOUSE
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official:


ESMERALDA G. PROCTOR         DATE: 061103
Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder