Case Number AR20070013372

Application Receipt Date: 070927	

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:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Original Character of Discharge
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge:    Date: NIF
Discharge Received:     Date: 050630   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial By Court Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: HHC, 501st STB, Fort Campbell, KY 

Time Lost: AWOL for 31 days (050318-050418), 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
DOB:  660831  
Current ENL Date: 020625    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 11Mos, 04Days ?????
Total Service:  18 Yrs, 11Mos, 04Days ?????
Previous Discharges: USAR 831219-840621/NA
                                      ADT 840622-841110/HD
                                      USAR 841110-891218/NA
                                      USAR 900408-960407/NA
                                      ARNG 970807-010806/NA
Highest Grade: E-5
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 25U10/Signal Support Systems Specialist   GT: 105   EDU: College Grad   Overseas: Kuwait, Iraq   Combat: Iraq (030228-040226)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, AAM-2, ICM, GWOTSM, NDSM, NPDR, ASR, OSR-2, 
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 29 April 2005, the applicant was charged with AWOL (050318-050418) and wrongful use of cocaine (050111-050211).  On 21 June 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 did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 22 June 2005, 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 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, and the supporting medical documents from the Veterans Administration, 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.  This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4.  However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable.     

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 16 January 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 was too harsh based on length of service, quality of service, circumstances surrounding discharge, and combat, 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.  

Case report reviewed and verified by: David Loy, Examiner									        
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: E4

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



        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages