Application Receipt Date: 070111

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See applicant's attached 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: 021126
Discharge Received:     Date: 021220
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: B Company, 3d Battalion, 7th Infantry (Mechanized), Fort
Stewart, GA

Time Lost: Absent without leave for a total of 5 days (020823-020827).
Theapplicant returned to his unit of assignment.  Also, the applicant was
reported as being absent without leave 1 day from (021001-021002).

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): The applicant makes reference to
having received a Article 15 and being reduced to E1 in the "Reason and
Request Information" section of his DD Form 293, however, no Article 15's
were found in the available record.

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  810425
Current ENL Date: 020624    Current ENL Term: 06 Years       
Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 05Mos, 22Days      
Total Service:  03 Yrs, 05Mos, 24Days      
Previous Discharges: RA-990622-020623/HD
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No
MOS: 11B10 (Infantryman)   GT: 110   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None
Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR, IEB (The applicant makes reference to having
received the OSR and AAM, however the available record is void of any
documents to support his claim).
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: Russellville, KY
Current Address: 1695 lee rd apt c110
winter park FL 32789
United States
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 6 November 2002, the applicant
was charged with going AWOL from 23 August 2002 to 28 August 2002 and 1
October 2002 to 2 October 2002, failure to go at the time prescribed to his
appointed place of duty X 6 28-30 September 2002 and 5-7 October 2002, and
disobeying a lawful command from a noncommissioned officer (SSG) on 22
October 2002.  On 25 November 2002, 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 he understood that
he 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 his own behalf.  The
unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under
other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 4 December 2002, the
separation authority approved the discharge with a under other than
honorable conditions discharge.

      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, the
issue and documents he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating
factors that would merit an upgrade of the characterization of service 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.  While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned,
the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization
of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The analyst
found that the length of the applicant's service and the circumstances
surrounding his discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service
record.  However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and
equitable.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing:                  Date: 10 September 2007
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: Ms. Jennifer D'Antonio (Girl Friend)

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted 7 additional documents, in
support of his testimony.



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
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 result it is now
inequitable.  The Board found that the overall length and quality of the
applicant's service and his post service accomplishments mitigated the
discrediting entries in his service record.  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: 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: 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: 20 September 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder