Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/11	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant provides no issues of equity and properity, but he provides a VA diagnosis of PTSD.

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: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 061201   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: D Co, 1/18th Inf Reg, APO, AE 

Time Lost: None

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 041213    Current ENL Term: 5 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 11Mos, 18Days ?????
Total Service:  		4 Yrs, 00Mos, 28Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 021030-041212/HD
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10 Infantryman   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany, SWA   Combat: Iraq (040210-050210)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, MUC, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR x2, CIB

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Rocky Mount, NC
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows Trial Defense Counsel's memo dated 17 November 2006, the applicant was charged on 5 May and 19 June 2006, respectively with AWOL, willfully disobeyed a superior commissioned officer, insubordinate conduct towards an NCO and wrongful use and possession of a controlled substance.  
       On 17 November 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       On 27 November 2006, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  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, under honorable conditions 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 submitted with the application, 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 the former Soldier’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the 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 the combat service, and the supporting medical documents from the Veterans Administration diagnosing him with PTSD, mitigated the discrediting entries in the service record.  
       Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 2 April 2010         Location: Washington, DC

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 characterization of service was too harsh and as a result it is inequitable, based on the overall length and quality of the applicant's service to include his combat service.  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 both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  This action entails restoration of grade to E-4/SPC.
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 5    No change 0
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
X.  Board Action Directed					         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: E4
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090008218
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages