Application Receipt Date: 061019	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents.

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: 940418
Discharge Received:     Date: 940516   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial 
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: U.S. Army Personnel Center (USARPERCEN) St. Loius, MO 63132 

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:  650501  
Current ENL Date: 910127    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  2 mos/18 days
Current ENL Service: 03  Yrs, 03 Mos, 20 Days ?????
Total Service:  11 Yrs, 10 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: USAR-820618-830601/NA
                                      RA-830602-860416/NA
                                      USAR-860417-900128/NA
                                      IADT-900129-900518/HD
                                      USARCG-900519-910126/NA
Highest Grade: E5
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 71L10 Admin Spec   GT: 102   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, ARCAM, NDSM, ASR, OSR, COT 
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant graduated from Miles College as Valedictorian with a Bachleor of Science Degree in Management.  The applicant was granted regular admission to Central Michigan University as a graduate student.    

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 7 March 1994, the applicant was charged with larceny of property from the Post Exchange of a combined value of about $1, 179.95, (931029), with intent to deceive, make a false signature to an AAFES deferred payment plan charge ticket, (931029), wrongfully and falsely alter the photograph of a military identification card, (931028), wrongfully use, with intent to defraud, a certain instrument purporting to be a military indentification card at or around AAFES, (931029).  On 24 March 1994, 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.  On 31 March 1994, the separation authority denied the applicant's request for discharge pursuant to Chapter 10, AR 635-200.  On 12 April 2004, again 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.  The applicant submitted a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 21 April 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.
      
      The applicant has a CID Report of Investigation dated 29 0ctober 1993, in her 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents she 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 her faithful and honorable service, as well as her 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, the time that has elasped since her discharge and her post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entries in her service record.  However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable.  This action entails a restoration of grade to SGT/E5.    

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 13 June 2007              
Location: Atlanta, GA

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: No

Witnesses/Observers:  Timothy Caldwell (Pastor) 

Exhibits Submitted: No




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 2    No change 3   - 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, hearing her testimony, 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. 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: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 25 June 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060014806

Applicant Name:  Ms.       
______________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 5 pages