Application Receipt Date: 070302 Prior Review Prior Review Date: 031022/Records I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293. 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: 000726 Discharge Received: Date: 001115 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Company B, 2nd Battalion, 58th Infantry, Fort Benning, GA 31905-5000 Time Lost: Confined by Civil Authorities-46 days, from (990115-990301), and he was AWOL-216 days, from (990302-991003), surrendered to the military authorities on (991004) at Fort Benning, GA and transferred to Fort Knox, KY. The applicant had a total of 262 days lost time. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: Current ENL Date: 980923 Current ENL Term: 3 Years The applicant was placed on excess leave for 404 days, from (991009-001115). Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 05 Mos, 01 Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 05 Mos, 01 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E1 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 93 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 8 October 1999, the applicant was charged with AWOL (990302-991003). On 8 October 1999, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter l0, 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 25 September 2000, 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 during the period of enlistment under review and the issue he submitted, the analyst recommends that relief be denied in this case. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The applicant consulted with defense counsel, and voluntarily in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by courts-martial. In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated or lesser included offenses under UCMJ. All the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of this prior to requesting discharge. Further, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “4.” An RE code of “4” can not be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 1 October 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: Yes [redacted] Witnesses/Observers: Yes (Wife) Exhibits Submitted: No 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 0 No change 5 - 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 discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: , Examiner 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: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 11 October 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE