Application Receipt Date: 060828	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 27 months of service with no other adverse action.  

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: 940211
Discharge Received:     Date: 940401   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: 615th Military Police Company, 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:  691202  
Current ENL Date: 920109    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  With a 2 month extension (930928)
Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 2 Mos, 23 Days ?????
Total Service:  5 Yrs, 5 Mos, 8 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: USAR-900724-900815/NA
                                       ADT-900816-910103/Unchar
                                     USAR-910104-920108/NA
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 94B10 Food Service Specialist   GT: 89   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany (920111-940330)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR, OSR
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 18 January 1994, the applicant was charged with wrongfully damaging the property of female, a SPC, and a PFC, of a value less than $100.00 x 4, (931107), (931022), (931114), (931114), commit sodomy with a female (930906), wrongfully have sexual intercourse with a married woman not his wife (930906), and wrongfully make under oath a false statements x 3, (931114), (931115), and (931115).  The applicant's request for a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial is not part of the available record and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge processed.  However, further evidence shows that on 11 February 1994, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate indicated that the chain of command recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by courts-martial be approved with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 11 February 1994, 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.  On 11 March 1994, Orders 60-10, DA, 55th Personnel Service Company, Composite Team Unit #28805, APO AE, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective date: 1 April 1994.  
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

      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 available 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.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that 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: 20 September 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 0    No change 5   - 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 discharge was both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.  
























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: NA
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 28 September 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060012203

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 6 pages