Application Receipt Date: 060721	

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: 910925
Discharge Received:     Date: 911022   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: For the Good of Service-In Lieu of Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: A Battery, 5th Battalion, 8th Field Artillery, Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: Absent without leave for a total of 162 days (910401-910909).  Applicant surrendered to military authority at Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  680105  
Current ENL Date: 900102    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  15 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 04Mos, 07Days (Includes 34 days of excess leave 910919-911022)
Total Service:  01 Yrs, 04Mos, 07Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E2
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B10 (Cannon Crewmember)   GT: 101   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (900901-910327)
Decorations/Awards: ASR
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 19 September 1991, the applicant was charged with going AWOL from 1 April 1991 to 10 September 1991.  On 19 September 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 a 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 reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 25 September 1991, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions and that he be reduced to private/E1.

      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 several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the characterization of service 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.  While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable.  The analyst found that the applicant's combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge, and the time that has elapsed since his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 11 July 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 4    No change 1   - Character
		 			      Change 0    No change 5   - 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 does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result, it is now inequitable. The Board found that the circumstances surrounding the AWOL, his combat service, and the time that has elasped since his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the 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 PV2/E2.















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: None
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: PV2/E2

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 20 July 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060010216

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 5 pages