Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2007/07/03	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: "While stationed at Fort Ord, CA, an incident occurred in which I tried to be a mediator, but instead ended up taking the blame for someone else's actions.  In the fall 1992 a friend of mine was having marital problems with a woman that I introduced him to, so I felt kind of responsible.  He had been given a STD by her.  With his firearm in tow, he set out looking for the other guy.  I tried to calm him down by riding with him.  As we drove around, he started drinking and I saw an opportunity to get his firearm away from him, possibly stopping him from hurting or killing someone.  He continued drinking and eventually passed out.  I brought him back to the barracks to sleep it off and keep him out of trouble.  I took the firearm and put it in the ceiling, planning on giving to him when everything blew over.  The following morning however; we had a contraband inspection and the weapon was found.  My so-called friend who I had known since basic training never came forward to explain why I did what I did and let me take the fall.  I never wanted to be an embarrassment to the army, but that is how it all seemed to turn out.  I was punished for doing what I was taught to do since basic training which is: always have your buddies back.  I had his but who had mine?  A rush to judgment cost me my career and in lieu of court-martial, I chose a voluntary separation."

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: 930311
Discharge Received:     Date: 930420   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: For the Good of the Service/In Lieu of Trial By Court-Martail
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: A Co, 1-9 IN Bn, Fort Lewis, WA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 920115, larceny of $660 in currency, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $376 x 2 (suspended), 45 days extra duty and restriction (FG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Year/Month:  7110  
HOR City, State: New Orleans, LA
Current ENL Date: 900724    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 08Mos, 27Days ?????
Total Service:  02 Yrs, 08Mos, 27Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10/Infantry   GT: 95   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR, NDSM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 11 March 1993, the applicant was charged with theft of a semi-automatic pistol valued at more than $100 and with a violation of a lawful general regulation by being improperly in possession of a privately owned firearm (930228).  On 15 March 1993, 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 disapproval of the Chapter 10 request and that the applicant be tried by a court martial empowered to issue a bad conduct discharge.  On  26 March 1993, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request 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, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  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 offenses under the UCMJ.  The analyst noted that 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 that prior to requesting discharge.  Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 27 June 2008              
Location: Washington, D.C.

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 1    No change 4   - 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 discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.  

								        
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: 30 June 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070009435
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages