Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 070830 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents 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: 021104 Discharge Received: Date: 021113 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: B Co, 82 EN, APO AE 09139 Time Lost: AWOL for 3 days (020624-020626), mode of return unknown. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 020610, failure to report (020601), disobeyed a lawful command from a CPT (020601), and drunk on duty x 2 (020601) and (020522), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $553 x 2, restriction for 45 days and extra for 45 days (FG). Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Year/Month: 8102 HOR City, State: Wallingford, CT Current ENL Date: 011113 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 00 Mos, 08 Days ????? Total Service: 04 Yrs, 08 Mos, 02 Days Item 12e on the applicant's DD Form 214, total prior inactive service is incorrect, should read 03Yrs, 07 Mos, 24 days Previous Discharges: USAR-980319-011112/NA Highest Grade: E-2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 12B10 Combat Engineer GT: 112 EDU: GED Cert Overseas: Germany Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 1 November 2002, the applicant was charged with failure to report (020623), AWOL (020624-020626), drunk on duty x 6 (020802), (020807), (020809), (020704), (020713), and (021030), wrongful possession of marijuana (020624), assault (021030), and broke restriction x 3 (020623), (020704) and (020713). On 1 November 2002, 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 applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 7 November 2002, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant's record contains two Military Police Reports dated 5 July 2002 and 1 dated 13 July 2002. The applicant's record contains a CID Report of Investigation dated 8 July 2002. 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, the issues and documents 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. Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, 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. In view of the foregoing, 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: 13 August 2008 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 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. 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: 18 August 2008 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070012113 ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 5 pages