Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 070920	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See attached DD Form 293 and supporting documentation 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: 050427
Discharge Received:     Date: 050526   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: 588th Maintenance Co, 19th Maintenance Bn, 214th FA Bde, Fort Sill, OK 

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:  83/09  
HOR City, State: El Cajon, CA
Current ENL Date: 020430    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 00 Mos, 27 Days (Applicant was retained on active duty beyond his term of service to be processed with a view toward court-martial.)
Total Service:  03 Yrs, 00 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 63B  Light Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic   GT: 91   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq (030914-040227)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, ASR, GWOTSM, GWOTEM

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 27 April 2005, the Applicant was charged with wrongfully distributing, using and possessing marijuana on 13 April 2007.  On 28 April 2005, 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 19 May 2005, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.
      
      The Record contains a CID Report dated 15 February 2005.

      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.  

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 30 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 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 was too harsh based on the Applicant’s length and quality of his service to include his combat service and, as a result, it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  

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

Case Number AR20070013020
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages