Application Receipt Date: 2006/09/22	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See 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: 970819
Discharge Received:     Date: 970903   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In lieu of Trial by Court Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: Headquarters Company, 46th Support Battalion, Fort Wainwright, AK99703-9100 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 970730, Wrongfully make harassing phone calls (970529) and communicating a threat to a PFC (970529) (Field Grade).

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): ?????

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  670810  
Current ENL Date: 960516    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 03Mos, 17Days ?????
Total Service:  05 Yrs, 11Mos, 11Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 910923-960515  HD
Highest Grade: E5
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 77F   GT: 108   EDU: 2 yrs College   Overseas: Germany (940103-960726)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, ASR, NDSM, GCMDL, OSR
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant mentions receiving a BS in Criminal Justice however no supporting documents were provided with her issues.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 14 August 1997, the applicant was charged with: being absent from her unit x4 (970726,970807,970811,970812), disrespect towards a LTC (970807), disrespect towards a CPT (970807), disrespect towards a MSG (970805), disobeyed a lawful order from a LTC (970807), disobeyed a lawful order from a CPT x4 (970806, 970807, 970808 x2, 970811), disobeyed a lawful order from a 1SG (970807), disobeyed a lawful order from a MSG x2 (970728, 970805), disobeyed a lawful order from a Military Policeman (970811), damaged property (970811), reckless driving (970811), assaulting a SGT x2 (970811 x2), and communicating a threat to NCOs x2 (970805, 970811).  On 15 August 1997, 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 she understood that she 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 her own behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 25 August 1997, 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 issue she 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 offenses 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.  Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 2007/10/26              
Location: Washington D.C.

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     1    No change     4   - 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 and voted to deny relief.

Case report reviewed and verified by: Edgar Yanger, 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: 2007/10/29
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060013463

Applicant Name:  Ms.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages