Application Receipt Date: 061101	

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: 040720
Discharge Received:     Date: 041105   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: Company E 82nd Chemical Bn 3rd Chemical Bde Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473 

Time Lost: AWOL-71 days (040411-040620) surrendered to military authorities 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:  821222  
Current ENL Date: 040205    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  applicant placed on excess leave for 134 days (040625-041105).
Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 06 Mos, 20 Days ?????
Total Service:  00 Yrs, 06 Mos, 20 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E2
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: 100   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant has been employed by the Georgia Department Of Corrections as a corrections officer since 1 March 2006.  

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 24 June 2004, the applicant was charged with AWOL from (040411-040620).  On 25 June 2004, 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 recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 7 October 2004, 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 careful review of all the applicant's military records for the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents she submitted, the analyst recommend that relief in this case be denied.  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 punitive charge.  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 UCMJ.  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 this prior to requesting discharge.  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: 070205              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: Yes

Witnesses/Observers: No 

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted twenty one pages of documents in support of her personal appearance hearing. 




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     No change    (Character)
		 			       	Change     No change    (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 characterization of service was too harsh and as a result it is now inequitable.  The Board found that the circumstances surrounding the discharge and the applicant's post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the 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 entails a restoration of grade to PV2/E2.    















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: PV2/E2

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

ROBERT L. HOUSE
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 070209
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060015442

Applicant Name:  Ms.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 5 pages