Application Receipt Date: 070131

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: 051019
Discharge Received:     Date: 051222
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: Company E, 2nd Battalion, 44th Air Defense Artillery, Fort
Campbell, KY 42223-5000

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:  830420
Current ENL Date: 020501    Current ENL Term: 3 Years       
Current ENL Service: 03  Yrs, 07 Mos, 22 Days      
Total Service:  03  Yrs, 07 Mos, 22 Days      
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No
MOS: 14S10 Avenger Crewmember   GT: 90   EDU: HS Grad    Overseas:
SouthWest Asia   Combat: Iraq (030305-040221)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ICM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSB (2)
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: Columbia, MD 21045
Current Address: 6220 Shallowford Rd (279)
Chattanooga TN 37421
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 19 October 2005, the applicant
was charged with stealing an automatic teller machine/debit card, of some
value, the property of a CPL, (19 November 2004), steal United States
currency from an ATM machine of Bank of America x 5, (19 November 2004), of
a value of about $500.00, the property of a CPL; (23 November 2004), of a
value of about $300.00, the property of a CPL; (29 November 2004), of a
value of about $500.00, the property of a CPL; (1 December 2004), of a
value of about $500.00, the property of a CPL; (2 December 2004), of a
value of about $500.00, the property of a CPL; steal United States currency
from an ATM machine of the Langley Federal Credit Union,  (26 November
2004), of a value of about $300.00, the property of a CPL; steal United
States currency at or near Hanover, Maryland, (26 November 2004), of a
value of about $200.00, the property of a CPL; steal United States currency
at or near Columbia, Maryland, (27 November 2004), of a value of about
$200.00, the property of a CPL; steal United States currency from an ATM
machine of the Nashville Post Office Credit Union, (1 December 2004), of a
value of about $500.00, the property of a CPL; steal United States currency
at or near Chattanoga, TN, (4 December 2004), of a value of about $400.00,
the property of a CPL.  On 5 December 2005, 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 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 his own
behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended
approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 14
December 2005, 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 6 May 2005, in
his 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 careful review of all the applicant's military records during
the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents he
submitted, the analyst recommend that the applicant's request for an
upgrade of his characterization of service 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 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 offense 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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the
applicant's isse; however, even though a single incident, the analyst
concluded that the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the
standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army
regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or
performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a
characterization of service.  Having examined all the circumstances, the
analyst determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did
indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brings discredit on the
Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single
incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's
service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  In view of the
foregoing, 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: 10 September 2007
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No

Counsel: Mr. Phil Riley
                American Legion
                1608 K Street NW
                 Washington, DC 2006

Witnesses/Observers: Mattie Whitfield (Mother)

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 3    No change 2   - 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 does not condone the
applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the characterization of
service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The Board found
that the length of the applicant’s service; to include his combat service,
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.  This action entails a
restoration of grade to SPC/E4.
















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: SPC/E4

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