Application Receipt Date: 060421	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached 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: 910912   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: For The Good Of The Service-In Lieu Of Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: 572nd Military Police Company (Phys Sec) Fort Ritchie, MD  

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): The applicant received two Article 15s dated (910212) and (900414), documents NIF.

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  710506  
Current ENL Date: 890718    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 02  Yrs, 01 Mos, 25 Days ?????
Total Service:  02 Yrs, 01Mos, 25 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 95B10 Military Policeman   GT: 110   EDU: HS Letter   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, ASR
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states he is married and has four beautiful children, and has maintained a full-time job for eight years as a maintenance technician.   

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 15 July 1991, the applicant was charged with failure to go to appointed place of duty (910621); wrongfully appropriate a camera, of a value of about $50.00, the property of a SPC, from about (900601) to about (901001); steal two gold earrings with diamond like stones, of a value of less than $100.00 the property of a private citizen (910618); steal one gold ring with a diamond like stone, of a value of less than $100.00 the property of a private citizen (910618); steal one gold ring with a diamond like stone, of a value of less than $100.00 the property of another private citizen (910618); steal a radar detector, of a value of about $65.00, the property of PFC, from about (910101) to about (910623); wrongfully and falsely alter his DD Form 2A United States Armed Forces Identification Card from about (900701) to about (900731);did at the Venice Lounge, wrongfully use with intent to deceive a certain instrument from about (900701) to about (910623); did at the Tortuga Resturant and Lounge, on two separate occasions, wrongfully use with intent to deceive a certain instrument from about (900701) to about (910623); did at Pizza Hut,  wrongfully use with intent to deceive a certain instrument from about (900701) to about (910623); at the Players Lounge, wrongfully use with intent to deceive a certain instrument from about (900701) to about (910623); steal a banner, a value of less than $100.00, the property of the Robinwood Shell Service Station (910823); and having been restricted to the limits of Fort Ritchie, MD, did break said restriction (910822).  On 25 July 1991, 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 unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  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.
      
      A local bar to reenlistment was approved on the applicant (910522).  

      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 issue and documents 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 is 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; the time that has elasped since his discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  However, the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable.  This action entails a restoration of grade to PV2/E2. 
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
         

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 061204              
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 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: 

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

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 061208
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060005770

Applicant Name:  Mr.       
______________________________________________________________________


Page 6 of 6 pages