Application Receipt Date: 060908	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293 and letter of support.

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: 050204
Discharge Received:     Date: 050302   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: 204th MP Company, 519th MP Battalion, Warrior Brigade, Fort Polk, LA  71459 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040726/Wrongfully used of marijuana between on or about (040425 and 040524)/(Field Grade)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  821213  
Current ENL Date: 010712    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 07Mos, 21Days ?????
Total Service:  03 Yrs, 07Mos, 21Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F10 (Petroleum Supply Specialist)   GT: 110   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Afghanistan (020107-020605) and Iraq (030320-040321)
Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, 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 4 February 2005, the applicant was charged with failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 22 January 2005, disobeying a lawful command from two noncommissioned officers(SSG's) on 10 September 2004, disobeying a lawful command from a noncommissioned officer (SSG) on 22 January 2005, disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer (SSG) on 22 January 2005, disobeying a lawful order from the Fort Polk Garrision Commander not to drive a vehicle on Fort Polk on 9 January 2005, wrongfully used marijuana between on or about 23 July 2004 and 23 August 2004, wrongfully used marijuana between on or about 10 December 2004 and 10 January 2005, and wrongful possession of marijuana on 9 January 2005.  On 4 February 2005, 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 and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 24 February 2005, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
      
      The applicant has a Military Police Report dated 9 January 2005, and a  CID Report of Investigation dated 1 February 2005, in his Official Military Personnel File.
      
      
      
      

      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, the issue, and documents 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 noted the applicant's issue, and found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The evidence of record further shows that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of nonjudicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.  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: 3 October 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 5    No change 0   - 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 applicant's length of service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in his 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. 
















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: 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: 11 October 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060012678

Applicant Name:  Mr.       
______________________________________________________________________


Page 6 of 6 pages