Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 080328	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached document 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: 960313
Discharge Received:     Date: 960327   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: USAG Carlisle Barracks, Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013 

Time Lost: The evidence of record shows that the applicant was confined by military authorities (960205-960214), however, this period is not annotated on the applicant's DD Form 214. 

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Year/Month:  7206  
HOR City, State: Brownsville, PA
Current ENL Date: 940225    Current ENL Term: 2 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 02  Yrs, 01 Mos, 03 Days ?????
Total Service:  06  Yrs, 08 Mos, 22 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: USAR-890706-900623/NA
                                      RA-900624-940224/HD
Highest Grade: E-4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 74C10 Rec Telecom Center Operator    GT: 115   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence record is void of the applicant's  DD Form 258 (Charge Sheet).  Also, the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 and his consultation with legal counsel is not part of the available record and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  The unit commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The intermediate and senior intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 22 March 1996, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted.
      
      It appears from the evidence of record that the applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-3 and from E-3 to E2.  

      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 found several mitigating factors that would merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions discharge.  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 is too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, mitigated the discrediting entries 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 PV2/E-2.  

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 18 August 2008              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: No

Witnesses/Observers: No 

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted 23 additional pages of documents in support of his personal appearance hearing.




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, hearing his testimony 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 inequitable. The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service and the circumstances surrounding his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  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 PV2/E-2.   















 

								        
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: PV2/E-2

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 26 August 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080004736
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages