Application Receipt Date: 060526	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293.

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: 911028
Discharge Received:     Date: 911206   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: For the Good of the Service-In Lieu of Court Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: D Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX 

Time Lost: AWOL 30 days 910820-910920, records do not show how he was returned to military authority.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  640605  
Current ENL Date: 880223    Current ENL Term: 06 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 09Mos, 13Days ?????
Total Service:  06 Yrs, 08Mos, 15Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA-850221-880222/HD
Highest Grade: E5
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 54B10 (Chemical Operations Specialist)   GT: 118   EDU: GED   Overseas: Germany, SWA   Combat: SWA (901009 to 910401)
Decorations/Awards: ASR, NDSM, OSR, SWAM (w/2 bronze service stars), AAM, NCOPDR, GCMDL, 
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with going AWOL from 20 August 1991 thru 20 September 1991.  On 1 November 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 recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 18 November 1991, 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, and the independent evidence he submitted, it is recommended that the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his characterization of service be upgrade to general, under honorable conditions.  The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  While the applicant's misconduct is not condone, his overall length and quality of service to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding his discharge, and the time that has elapsed since his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  However, the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable.  This action will entail a grade restoration to sergeant E5.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 061122              
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 characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted not to change it.  This action will entail a grade restoration to sergeant E5.


















Case report reviewed and verified by: Eric S. Moore, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: E5

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 061127
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060007475

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages