Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 080805	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: "To initiate post tramatic stress evaluation."

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 960912
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 961011   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: PCF, Personnel and Support Bn, Fort Sill, OK 

Time Lost:  AWOL x 3 for total of 442 days (950516-950610/apprehended; 950611-950824/apprehended; 950829-960806/apprehended).
Civilian Confinement for a total of 9 days (950412-950420); Apprehended and incarcerated for possession of one gram of cocaine.  Total time lost 451 days.

The Applicant's DD Form 214, block 29, incorrectly states Lost Time from 19950829-19960913; however, the Applicant was placed in excess leave status on 19960807.  Therefore, the Applicant's 214, block 29, should read, "…19950829-19960806".  This correction is in conformance with the Applicant's Charge Sheet, DD Form 458, dated 6 August 1996.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF; however, in a Memorandum from the Applicant's chain of command, dated 12 June 1995, the following information was provided:
950403 - The Applicant admitted to his chain of command that he had a drug problem and was referred to ADACP.
950412 - The Applicant was apprehended and incarcerated by El Paso, TX civilian authorities for possession of one gram of cocaine. 
950418 - The Applicant's urinalysis tested positive for cocaine.
950421 - The Applicant was released from civilian incarceration and placed into military barracks.
950425 - The Applicant received a Field Grade Article 15 for missing movement, and was reduced in rank to E4, and received 45 days of extra duty and restriction.
950425 - The Applicant's chain of command initiated a Field Grade Article 15 for possession and use of cocaine and a Chapter 14.
950516 - The Applicant went AWOL.
950525 - The Applicant was apprehended and incarcerated by El Paso, TX civilian authorities.
950610 - The Applicant was released to military control but went AWOL immediately thereafter.
950914 - The Applicant was apprehended and incarcerated by El Paso, TX civilian authorities and charged with 
one count of theft, two counts of assault, and one count of causing injury to a child.

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  22
Current ENL Date: 920724    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	04 Yrs, 02 Mos, 17 Days Includes 65 days of excess leave (960807-961011).
Total Service:  		06 Yrs, 09 Mos, 20 Days The Applicant's current DD Form 214, block 12c, Net Active Service This Period is incorrect and should read, "06/09/20".  Additionally, the Applicant's current DD Form 214, block 12e, Total Prior Inactive Service, should read, "00/05/13".
Previous Discharges: 	RA 881025-920723/HD
Highest Grade: E5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 96R, Ground Surveillance System Operator   GT: 117   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany, Saudi Arabia, Korea   Combat: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (dates are not in the record of evidence; however, Applicant's awards indicate he served in the combat zone)
Decorations/Awards: AAM, VUA, AGCM, KLM(K), SWASM w/3 bronze service stars, NDSM, HSM, ASR, OSR(2), NCOPDR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Baltimore, MD
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed by the Applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 6 August 1996, the Applicant was charged with being AWOL (950516-950610, 950611-950824, 950829-960806).  On 8 August 1996, 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 unit commander recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 18 September 1996, 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, 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.  This action entails a restoration of grade to SGT/E-5.
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 3 October 2008         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA

VIII.  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.  
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 2    No change 3
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
								         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: No Change
Other: No change										
RE Code: 									 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080012648
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages