Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 080124	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he seeks an upgrade from the current discharge in order to return to active duty service. His justification is anchored in the knowledge that his nearly four year commitment was served honorably. His service record speaks for itself. The charges brought against him were exaggerated without proof or consideration to culture and family dynamics which played a significant role. 

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: 050322
Discharge Received:     Date: 060421   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: US Army Medical Department Activity, Kenner Army Health Clinic, Fort Lee, VA 23801. 

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:  7303  
HOR City, State: East Orange, NJ 07018
Current ENL Date: 020617    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 3 Yrs, 10 Mos, 5 Days The net active service this period on the applicant's DD Form 214, item 12c is incorrect, should be: 3 Years, 10 Months 5 Days. 
Total Service:  3 Yrs, 10 Mos, 5 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 91W10 Health Care Specialist   GT: 118   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM (2), GCMDL, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: See enclosed DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 6 February 2006, the applicant was charged with unlawfully striking a child under the age of 16 years, on her body, multiple times (051103).  On 17 March 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's defense counsel submitted a statement on his behalf.  The unit and intermediate commanders recommended approval of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 11 April 2006, 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, supporting documents and the issue he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infraction of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offense.  While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board to grant relief 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 SPC/E-4.   

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 9 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 was too harsh and as a result, it is inequitable.  The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant 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: NA
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: 18 July 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080001433
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages