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