Application Receipt Date: 061002	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See applicant's 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: NIF
Discharge Received:     Date: 921001   
Chapter: 5    AR: 635-120
Reason: Conduct Triable By Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: DFS
Unit/Location: HHC, 1st Brigade, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, NY 13602 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  650201  
Current ENL Date: 881002    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 04  Yrs, 00 Mos, 00 Days Item 12e on DD Form 214, total prior inactive service is incorrect, should read 02 Yrs, 01 Mos, 4 Days.
Total Service:  06  Yrs, 01 Mos, 04 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: USAR-860828-881002/NA
Highest Grade: 02
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 35D3R5P Tactical Intelligence Officer/Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Officer/Parachutist   GT: NA   EDU: BS Political Science   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, 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 complete facts and circumstances leading to the applicant's discharge fom the Army are not contained in the available records and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  However, the Army Council of Review Boards, OSA (Ad Hoc Review Board Worksheet), indicates  the applicant was charged with consensual oral sodomy and videotaping while he and others engaged in sexual activities.  On 6 July 1992, the applicant voluntarily tendered his resignation from the Army for the good of the service under the provisions of Chapter 5, AR 635-120.  The appropriate authorities reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with an honorable discharge.  On 28 August 1992, the Ad Hoc Review Board recommended that the applicant’s resignation for the good of the service be accepted with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 9 September 1992, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Review Board that the resignation for the good of the service be accepted with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The evidence of record further shows that on 18 September 1992, Orders 349-293, DA, HQ, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) and Fort Drum, NY, Orders 262-209, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective date:  1 October 1992. 

      b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
      Army regulation 635-120, in effect at the time, prescribed the procedures for the resignation of USAR commission officers on active duty.  Chapter 5 allowed for an officer to submit a resignation for the good of the Service (RFGOS) in lieu of court-martial.  An officer separated under this paragraph normally receives a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions or under other than honorable conditions.

      c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
      After a careful review of all the applicant’s available military records during the term of service under review and the issues 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 now 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 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: 21 November 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 4    No change 1   - 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 term of service 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 now inequitable.  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: None

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

Case Number AR20060014108

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 5 pages