Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 070820	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, for job purposes.

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: 040416
Discharge Received:     Date: 040507   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: 109th Quartermaster Company,  240TH Quartermaster Battalion, 49th Quartermaster Group, Fort Lee, VA 23801 

Time Lost: AWOL x 1 for 23 days from (040304-040326). Mode of return unknown.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Year/Month:  8204  
HOR City, State: ?????
Current ENL Date: 020204    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 1 Mos, 18 Days The applicant has a period of AWOL that was not shown on her DD Form 214, item 29 (Time Lost).  See DA Form 4187 and DD Form 458. 
Total Service:  2 Yrs, 1 Mos, 18 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F10 Petroleum Supply Specialist   GT: 96   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Kuwait/Iraq (030306-031122)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR

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 1 April 2004, the applicant was charged with AWOL from (040304-040326) and wrongfully using marijuana on or about (040212).  On 7 April 2004, 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 she understood that she 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 her own behalf; however, the Senior Defense Counsel (CPT, JA) submitted a statement on her behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 16 April 2004, 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.  
      
      The record contains a CID Report dated 2 March 2004.

      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 she 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.  This recommendation was made after full consideration of her faithful and honorable service, as well as her 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 determined that the overall length of the applicant's service, to include her combat service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in her service record.  Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that partial relief be granted in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service 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 PFC/E-3.   

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 20 August 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 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: 28 August 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070011711
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages