Application Receipt Date: 060420	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD 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: 040818
Discharge Received:     Date: 041013   
Chapter: 3    AR: 600-8-24
Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: DFS
Unit/Location: 0082 AG HQS Personnel Services FC Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000 

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:  750120  
Current ENL Date: 970618    Current ENL Term: Indef Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 7 Yrs, 3 Mos, 26 Days ?????
Total Service:  7 Yrs, 3 Mos, 26 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: 03
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 42B5W Personnel Sys Mgt/46A5W Public Affairs Gen   GT: NA   EDU: BS Degree   Overseas: Iraq   Combat: Iraq (031014-040415)/Uzbekistan (011116-020115)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM (2), AAM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states she is a Military Recruiter for a private corporation and loves her job and the opportunity to help service members.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      Evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged on 19 July 2004, did between on or about (040501) and (040707), violate a general regulation, AR 600-20, Army Command Policy by wrongfully comprising, or appearing to comprimise, the intergrity of supervisory authority or the chain of command; wrongfully causing actual or perceived partiality or unfairness; wrongfully creating an actual or clearly predictable adverse impact on discipline, authority morale, or the ability of the command to accomplish its mission; and wrongfully having a sexual relationship with an enlisted person; between on or about (040501) and (040707),wrongfully and knowingly allow herself to be videotaped performing sexual acts with a married enlisted man under her command, which conduct was unbecoming an officer and gentlewoman and to the disgrace of the armed forces; between on or about (040501) and (040707), wrongfully have sexual intercourse with a SGT, a married man not her husband.  On 17 August 2004, the applicant voluntarily tendered her resignation in lieu of trial by a General Court Martial under the provisions of Chapter 3-13, AR 600-8-24.  The applicant was advised of her rights and understood that if her resignation was accepted, she could receive any type of discharge as determined by Headquarters DA.  On 27 August  2004, the Commander, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC recommended approval of the applicant's resignation in lieu of trial by a General Court-Martial. The Ad Hoc Review Board met; and on 17 September 2004,  the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board, accepted the applicant's resignation and directed that the applicant be discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.        

      b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
      Army regulation 600-8-24 prescribes the policies and procedures governing the transfer and discharge of Army officer personnel.  Chapter 3, Paragraph 3-13 outlines the rules for processing requests for resignation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial.

      c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
      After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the term of service under review, and the independent evidence she submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable.  This recommendation was made after full consideration of her faithful and honorable service, as well as her 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 overall length and quality of the applicant's service to include her combat service; and her post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entries in her service record.  However, the analyst determined that the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable.    

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 061106              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: No

Witnesses/Observers: Yes 

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted two additional documents in support of her 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 term of service under review, hearing her testimony, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was inequitable based on the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, circumstances surrounding the discharge and her post service accomplishments.  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 miscellaneous/general reasons with a corresponding separation code (SPD) of "FND."  

















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:  miscellaneous/general reasons with a corresponding separation code (SPD) of "FND."  
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: None

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


ESMERALDA G. PROCTOR		DATE: 061113
Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060005713

Applicant Name:  Ms.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages