Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 070711	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: My performance in the Army was unparalleled. During my entire service I never receieved a negative counseling or a letter of reprimand. All of my former Commanders, 1st Sergeants and sub-ordinates alike spoke highly of me in every regard. I was one of the youngest soldiers to achieve the rank of sergeant in the entire battalion. I was rated of peers on all of my NCOERS. I chose the discharge I received in order to prevent the prolonging of the situation based in my DD214 under character of discharge. My jag representation was quite confident in my case and at any point wasnt even sure as to why I was before him with the very limited to know evidence prosecution had. Two of my former soldiers were in the wrong and admitted to being so and that I had no involvement in such activity My commander refused to prefer charges against me and my battalion commander being a former morals and ethics instructor wasnt so sure being new and unaware of my previous actions or performances preferred charges on me. The unit was scheduled to deploy and the case was prolonged enlight of this I did two tours in Iraq and did not want to serve under a battalion Commander who would immediately prefer charges based on his own opinions rather than facts. I had a remarkable reputation prior to my discharge recieved several letters of recommendations to include all of my previous commanders and 1st sergeants alike I did not want to prolong the situation and have my reputation at that point ruined I chose to go out while I had the respect of my peers...

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: NIF
Discharge Received:     Date: 061221   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial By Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: D Co, 1st Bn, 508th PIR, 4th BCT, 82nd Airborne Div, Fort Bragg, NC 

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
Year/Month:  85/05  
HOR City, State: Stockdale, PA
Current ENL Date: 051227    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 00 Mos, 06 Days ?????
Total Service:  03 Yrs, 06 Mos, 09 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA 030613-051226/HD
Highest Grade: E-5
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92Y  Unit Supply Specialist   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq (040105-040416 & 050901-060106)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM (3), AAM (4), NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, Iraq Campaign Medal, ASR, CAB

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 3 October 2006, the Applicant was charged with conspiracy to commit larceny and larceny (25 June 2006).  On 28 November 2006, 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 30 November 2006, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  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 available military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst recommends that the Applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as his record of misconduct.  The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the Applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  While the Applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst noted 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 analyst recommends to the Board that the Applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable.  This action entails a restoration of grade to SGT/E-5.  

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 11 July 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 2    No change 3   - 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: 11 July 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070009644
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages