Application Receipt Date: 060817	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 with one (1) attachment.

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: 980717
Discharge Received:     Date: 980923   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: 226th Quartermaster Supply Company, 87th Combat Support Battalion, Fort Stewart, GA  31314 

Time Lost: AWOL x 4, for a total of 43 days from (960909-960910), (980108-980112), (980121-980127), (980224-980325).  His last period of AWOL, the applicant surrendered to the military authorities at Fort Stewart, GA, and was transferred to Fort Knox, KY  40121-5000.  

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 961021; AWOL, from (9 September 1996 until 11 September 1996, (Company Grade)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  760909  
Current ENL Date: 950906    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 11 Mos, 4 Days The applicant was placed on excess leave for a total of 175 days from (980402-980923).  
Total Service:  2 Yrs, 11 Mos, 4 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92G10 Food Service Specialist   GT: 88   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: See DD Form 293 with attachment.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 1 April 1998, the applicant was charged with AWOL, from (24 February 1998 until 26 March 1998).  On 1 April 1998, 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 12 August 1998, 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 issues he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit partial relief in the form of 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.  The analyst does not condone the applicant's misconduct, however, 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 length of the applicant's service, the circumstances surrounding the AWOL, his post service accomplishments and the time that has elapsed since his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable.  
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 22 August 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 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 determined that the characterization of service was too harsh and as a result, it is inequitable.  The Board found that the length of the applicant's service, the circumstances surrounding his AWOL, and his post service accomplishments 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.  This action entails a restoration of grade to "SPC/E4.  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. Ron Williams, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: N/A
Other: N/A
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: SPC/E4

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 24 August 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060011692

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 6 of 6 pages