Application Receipt Date: 060802	

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: 020301
Discharge Received:     Date: 020618   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: Headquarters Company MCB, WRAMC, Washington, DC 20307-5001 

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:  641219  
Current ENL Date: 980610    Current ENL Term: 5 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 04  Yrs, 00 Mos, 19 Days ?????
Total Service:  13 Yrs, 02 Mos, 00 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA-890419-930114/HD
                                      RA-930115-960530/HD
                                      RA-960531-980609/HD
Highest Grade: E6
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 63H10 Track Vehicle Repairer/12B10 Combat Engineer   GT: 85   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM (4), NDSM (2), NCOPDR, ASR, CWR/Cert
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 22 January 2002, the applicant was charged with stealing a computer , of a value of about $2,008.00, the property of a SPC, (011108).  On 20 February 2002, 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 and intermediate commanders recommended approval of the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 7 May 2002, the intermediate commander recommended disapproval of the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and the referred matter to a General Court-Martial.  On 6 June 2002, the senior inermediate commander (North Atlantic Fleet Command and Walter Reed Army Medical Center), recommended approval of the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and forwarded it to the Commander, U.S. Military District of Washington .  On 7 June 2002, the separation authority (Commander, U.S. Military District of Washington), 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 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 was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service; and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable.  This action entails a restoration of grade to SSG/E6.    

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 1 August 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 3    No change 2   - 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 inequitable.  The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant’s service, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial 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.  














  

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: SSG/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: 13 August 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060011520

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages