Application Receipt Date: 060217

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: 050803

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached document.

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: 960229
Discharge Received:     Date: 960315/applicant was heard by the ADRB and
received a general, under honorable conditions discharge on (050803).
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): the SJA's memorandum shows the
applicant received an article 15, however document NIF.

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  730702
Current ENL Date: 950721    Current ENL Term: 4 Years       
Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 07 Mos, 25 Days      
Total Service:  04 Yrs, 02 Mos, 16 Days      
Previous Discharges: RA-911230-950720/HD
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No
MOS: 91B10 Medical Sergeant   GT: 94   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None
Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ASR
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record:
Current Address:
Post Service Accomplishments: A supporting statement for applicant states
he works as a detention officer for the Bexar County Juvenile Detention
Officer.  He works with youth who have committed minor or serious crimes
within their community, and some youth have emotional, behavior and mental
problems.  The statement indicates he is dedicated to his family and
religious beliefs.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with seven
specifications of failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed
place of duty; disobedience of a commissioned officer’s lawful command;
disrespect toward a commissioned officer; failure to obey a general
regulation; and disobedience of a noncommissioned officer’s lawful order.
On 14 February 1996, 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 stated that he understood that he could receive a
discharge under other than honorable conditions and that the discharge
would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits.  The
applicant did not submit a statement on his own behalf.  The unit and
intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than
honorable conditions discharge.  On 11 March 1996, 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.


      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, the issues and document he
submitted, the analyst recommend that the applicant’s characterization of
service be upgraded to fully honorable.  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; circumstances surrounding the discharge; the time that has elasped
since his discharge; and his post service accomplishments mitigated the
discrediting entries in his service record.  However, the reason for
discharge was both proper and equitable.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing:                  Date: 070314
Location: Dallas, TX

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No

Counsel: Yes

Witnesses/Observers: None

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted a statement in support of his
personal appearance hearing.



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, 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.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the
form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.
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: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, 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: None

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority:

MARK E. COLLINS
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official:


MARY E. SHAW                      DATE: 070323
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder