Application Receipt Date: 060613	

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: 050309
Discharge Received:     Date: 050315   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: H Company, 2d Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Carson, CO 

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:  740827  
Current ENL Date: 030307    Current ENL Term: Indef Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 00Mos, 09Days ?????
Total Service:  12 Yrs, 05Mos, 29Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA-920917-950524/HD
                                      RA-950525-980610/HD
                                      RA-980611-990909/HD
                                      RA-990910-030306/HD
Highest Grade: E6
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19K10 (M1 Armor Crewman)   GT: 113   EDU: 2 Yr Coll   Overseas: Germany, Kuwait   Combat: Iraq (950315-950515)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM (2d Award), AAM (4th Award), AGCM (4th Award), KDSM, NDSM (2d Award), GWOTSM, SWASM (with one bronze service star), NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, KLM
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 on 12 January 2005, the applicant was charged with wrongfully soliciting another Soldier to obstruct justice by asking him to urinate in a container for another Soldier during a unit urinalysis inspection on or about 4 October 2004.  On 2 March 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 for the good of the service-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.  Records show that the applicant's chain of command recommended approval of his discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 10 March 2005, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  It was also directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.
      
      The applicant has a CID Report of Investigation dated 7 January 2005, in his Official Military Personnel File.
      
      
      
      
      

      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 denied.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  The applicant consulted with defense counsel, and voluntarily in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated or lesser included offenses under the UCMJ.  All the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.  The reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 25 April 2007              
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.  The Board determined that the applicant's overall length and quality of service, 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 general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted not to change it.  The action does entail a grade restoration to staff sergeant/E6.
















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: E6

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 4 May 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060008501

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 5 pages