Application Receipt Date: 050726	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: Personal Appearance/Los Angeles/CA/030408

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 with attached enclosures

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: 990826
Discharge Received:     Date: 990910   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: 183rd Maint Company, Fort Carson, CO  80913-5014 

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:  760306  
Current ENL Date: 981006    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 11 Mos, 5 Days ?????
Total Service:  0 Yrs, 11 Mos, 5 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E2
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 63B10 Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic   GT: 107   EDU: GED   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address:
Post Service Accomplishments: See DD Form 293 with attachments

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 2 August 1999, the applicant was charged with fraudulently enlisting in the US Army (980808).  On 26 August 1999, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter l0, 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 1 September 1999, 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. 
      
      Subsequently, the applicant's case was heard by the Army Discharge Review Board, at a personal appearance hearing in Los Angeles, CA, and was upgraded to General, Under Honorable Conditions, and his narrative reason changed to Secretarial Authority under Chapter 5, AR 635-200, on 8 April 2003.

      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 for the period of enlistment under review, the new, substantial and relevant evidence he submitted, that was not available to the Board at the time of his personal appearance hearing, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to fully honorable.  The analyst 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 analyst found that the applicant's new, substantial and relevant evidence ( i.e. legal documentation and character references attached to his issues) to include his post-service accomplishments was of sufficient merit to recommend to the Board to further upgrade the applicant's characterization of service to fully honorable and consider changing the reentry eligibility (RE) code to "1."  
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 5 March 2007              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: N/A

Witnesses/Observers: N/A 

Exhibits Submitted: N/A




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
The President, on the motion of the Army Discharge Review Board, under the provisions of AR 15-180, Paragraph 8 (g), reconsidered the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review.  The applicant submitted new, substantial and relevant evidence, which was not available to the Board at the time of original review.  After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service, the new documentation submitted by the applicant, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the President determined that the characterization of service was too harsh and as a result it is inequitable.  The President found that the new, substantial and relevant evidence ( i.e. legal documentation and character references attached to his issues) to include his post-service accomplishments was of sufficient merit to upgrade the characterization of service to fully honorable.  This action entails a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to "1."  
















Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Ron Williams, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: None
Other: None
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: None

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 5 March 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070005244           (Reconsideration)

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 6 of 6 pages