Application Receipt Date: 061120 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 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: 011120 Discharge Received: Date: 011217 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: HHC, 11th Eng Bn, Fort Stewart, GA Time Lost: AWOL 122 days (001108-010310), apprehended Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier's Overall Record DOB: 750728 Current ENL Date: 000314 Current ENL Term: 03 Years Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 05Mos, 02Days Includes 265 days excess leave (010323-011217) Total Service: 05 Yrs, 10Mos, 17Days Previous Discharges: ARNG 950929-960131/NA ADT 960201-960626/HD ARNG 960627-961211/HD RA 961212-000313/HD Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 63Y10/Track Veh Mechanic GT: 113 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM-1, ASR 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 December 2000 the applicant was charged with AWOL (001108-010312). On 23 March 2001, 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The separation authority's approval memorandum was not part of the available record and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. However, Orders 354-0121, dated 20 December 2001, DA, US Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective date: 17 December 2001. 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, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 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 court-martial. In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated or lesser-included offenses under the UCMJ. The analyst noted that 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 that prior to requesting discharge. Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 071219 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 0 No change 5 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - Reason (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation Case report reviewed and verified by: Timon M. Oujiri, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: Other: RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060016450 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 4 pages