Application Receipt Date: 060615	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that she did every thing they ask of me I was the lower enlisted personal involved in adultery. I was eight months pregnant at the time this all took place I was scared and wanted it all to end so I gave in and change what I said in my rape case to have at least one of them end.  I found that it still has never ended just made my life worse to think about what these men done to me. I let go because I want it to end and go away could now be doing it to one or even more girls make me sick yes I had been drinking and it may have been to much but I made very clear want I did or did not want to happen that night and if the army wants personnel that can work together but can not tell when to draw the line I'm glad I'm out I was never really sure what happened that night but I do know before my last statement your investigator let me know what he felt happen that night then ask me to change my statement to make it end and I did as he ask of me. All this time my chain of command told me that I wasn't going to get in trouble. But once I gave them what they wanted they tried to court martial me. Both cases should have end in non-judicial punishment. I've seen soldiers get out on drug charges with a honorable discharge. I've seen soldiers who have took advantage of another person and nothing happen to them. I'm just very disappointed in how they can pick and choice who gets punished. If you check my records I've never received a Article 15 in my 2 years of service. I worked very hard for this unit and they wouldn't even chapter me out on a Chapter 8 discharge. Not to mention that another female in 6-52 ADA got brought up on adultery charge and they let her get Chapter 8 out. This is unfair treatment and also the SGT she was involved with got reduced to E-1 and sent to another unit. The SGT I was involved with was reduced to E-1 and sent home. How is this just I understand punish those who broke the law. But don't punish us worse then you would someone else. This is unfair treatment. thank you for listening.  

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: 050524
Discharge Received:     Date: 050623   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: D Battery, 6th Battalion, 52nd Air Defense Artillery, Ansbach, GE, APO, AE  09177 

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:  830821  
Current ENL Date: 030418    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 2 Mos, 6 Days ?????
Total Service:  2 Yrs, 2 Mos, 6 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 25Q10 Multichannel Transmission System Operator Maint   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: None Submitted

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 6 May 2005, the applicant was charged with on divers occasions between on or about (050301-050401), disobeying a lawful command from a CPT, wrongfully having a personal and sexual relationship with a SSG between on or about (041101-050211), with intent to deceive, made an official statement which was false (040626), wrongfully have sexual intercourse with a SSG between on or about (041101-050211), and wrongfully commit an indecent act with four individuals by having sexual intercourse with the aforementioned on or about (030826).  The applicant's consultation with legal counsel and her voluntarily request, in writing, for a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial, are not part of the available records, and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense.  Further, the applicant indicated that she understood that she 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 her own behalf.  The unit commander recommended disapproval; however, if approved recommend an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 13 June 2005, 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 issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  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.  The analyst noted that 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.  Furthermore, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 23 May 2007              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: N/A

Witnesses/Observers: N/A 

Exhibits Submitted: N/A




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 found that the circumstances surrounding the discharge, mitigated the discrediting entries in her 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.  However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted not to change it.  This action entails a restoration of grade to PFC/E3.   



















Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Ron Williams, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: None
Other: None
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: PFC/E3

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 1 June 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060008529

Applicant Name:  Ms.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 6 pages