Application Receipt Date: 070405	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 and attached documents (30) submitted by the applicant.

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: 070301
Discharge Received:     Date: 070308   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: HQ & HQ Company, 12th Combat Aviation Brigade Bldg 5850, Ketterbach Kaserne, Germany. 

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:  850424  
Current ENL Date: 020703    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 3 Yrs, 8 Mos, 7 Days ?????
Total Service:  3 Yrs, 8 Mos, 7 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 25B10 Info System Operator Analyst   GT: NIF   EDU: NIF   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Afghanistan (050408-060217)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, AFGCMDL, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR (2), 
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: Orlando, FL 32808-0000
Current Address: 4634 LaVista Drive 
Orlando FL 32808
Post Service Accomplishments: See enclosed DD Form 293 submitted by the applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 21 February 2007, the applicant was charged with being absent from his unit from (070113-070114), without authority  leaving his appointed place of duty and failing to go to his appointed place of duty (070112), missing the movement of HQ & HQ Company, 12th Combat Aviation Brigade, which he was required in the course of duty to move (070111), assaulting a SSG (070114) and disrespectful in language toward a SSG (070114), disobeying a lawful order from a Company 1SG (070112), disrespectful in language and deportment toward a CW2, (070109), disobeying a lawful order from a SGT (061220), did treat with contempt and was disrespectful in deportment toward a 1SG (061218), disobeying a lawful order from a SGT (061218) and was disrespectful in deportment toward a SGT (061218), and with intent to deceive, made an official statement, which as false to a SGT and a SSG (060920).  On 27 February 2007, 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.  On 1 March 2007, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate stated in his memorandum that the applicant's chain of command recommended approval of his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 1 March 2007, 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 a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, documents and the issue he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The analyst does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, 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 to include his combat service mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Accordingly, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable.
        
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 30 May 2008              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA




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 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 inequitable.  The Board determined that the overall length and quality 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 proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 



















Case report reviewed and verified by: ?????, 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: 07 JULY 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070004912

Applicant Name:           
______________________________________________________________________


Page 6 of 6 pages