Application Receipt Date: 061004	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: Records/040114

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

Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293 and supporting document.

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: 960926
Discharge Received:     Date: 961023   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: D Company, 309th Military Intelligence Battalion, Fot Huachuca, AZ 

Time Lost: AWOL for a total of 79 days (960531-960817).  Applicant surrenderd to military authority, at Fort Sill, OK

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  731025  
Current ENL Date: 960328    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 04Mos, 07Days (Includes 63 days of excess leave 960822-961023)
Total Service:  00 Yrs, 04Mos, 07Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: 116   EDU: 1 1/2 yrs of Coll   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None
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 21 August 1996, the applicant was charged with going AWOL from 31 May 1996 18 August 1996.  On 22 August 1996, 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 a 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 commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 30 September 1996, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions and that she be reduced to private/E1.

      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 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.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 4 June 2007              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: yes [redacted]

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: Applicant provide four additional documents in support of his case.




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 0   - 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, hearing his testimony 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.  The Board noted that the applicant was in entry-level status when she returned from a period of AWOL (i.e., she had completed less than 180 days of continuous active duty).  The applicant was charged with AWOL and while still in an entry-level status voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In essence the applicant’s separation action was initiated while the applicant was in an entry-level status and command had the option to characterize her service under other than honorable conditions or to describe her service as uncharacterized.  Notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant’s discharge, the Board found that the circumstances surrounding the discharge, her post service accomplishments and the time that has elapsed since her discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of characterization of service to uncharacterized.  However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  This action does entail a grade restoration to private first class/E3.








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: E3

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 8 June 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060014136

Applicant Name:  Ms.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages