Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 070726	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents 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: 920529
Discharge Received:     Date: 920714   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: For the Good of the Service-In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: E Co, MSB, Fort Hood, TX 

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:  7003  
HOR City, State: Elyria, OH
Current ENL Date: 891114    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  22 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 02  Yrs, 08 Mos, 01 Days ?????
Total Service:  02  Yrs, 08 Mos, 01 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31K10 Combat Signaler   GT: 110   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany/Southwest Asia   Combat: Saudi Arabia (901223-910504)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, AAM, NDSM, SWASM-3 BSS, ASR, OSR, KLM-SA, KLM-KU 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant submitted documentation which shows he is employed by Kellog, Brown and Root Services, Inc, as a contractor in operational support of the U.S. Army's LOGCAP contract in support of U.S Forces in various OCONUS locations. 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 20 May 1992, the applicant was charged with wrongful use of marijuana between (920307-920407).  On  27 May 1992, 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 recommended approval of the request for discharge for the good of the service with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The intermediate and senior commanders recommended approval of the request for discharge for the good of the service with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 3 June 1992, 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents 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 is too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable.  The analyst found that the length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service; the time that has elapsed since his discharge, and his post service accomplishments, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s characterization of service be partially 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.  This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4.  

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 11 July 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 5    No change 0   - 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 is too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable.  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 both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4.

















   

								        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: None
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: SPC/E-4

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

MARK E. COLLINS
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 16 July 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070010445
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages