Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2011/01/20 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he is aware of the seriousness of his decision to separate himself from active duty. He feels that his age and immaturity and the medical issues his mother was experiencing, helped him to make the rash decision to sacrifice his future and commitment to his country for his immediate family. Given the circimstances, he humbly ask for an upgrade of his discharge to general, under honorable conditions. 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: 970319 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: HQ & HQ Company, 8th Engineer Battalion, Fort Hood, TX Time Lost: AWOL x 1 from (960727-961117) for 114 days. He was apprehended by the civilian authorities at Sulfolk County, NY and was transferred to Fort Knox, KY. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 18 Current ENL Date: 940819 Current ENL Term: 3 Years The applicant required a moral waiver at the time of enlistment, which was approved on (931119). Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 3 Mos, 7 Days The computation includes 119 days of excess leave from (961121-970319). Total Service: 2 Yrs, 3 Mos, 7 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 12B10 Combat Engineer GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS (i.e., in lieu of trial by court-martial) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3." 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 military records and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The only pertinent evidence available for review regarding the applicant's discharge is the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, which was not authenticated by the applicant. The DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. Procedurally, the applicant was required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily, and in writing, request 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. In the absence of information to the contrary, the analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. It also noted the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant would have been aware of it prior to requesting discharge. The analyst noted the applicant's issue that his age and maturity and the medical issues his mother was experiencing, helped him to make the rash decision to sacrifice his future and commitment to his country for his immediate family. The analyst found that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The analyst further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Further, while the applicant may believe his issues at home was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from the issue dealing with his mother's medical condition through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Additionally, the burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will still be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record. Therefore, based on the available evidence, the analyst presumes government regularity in the discharge process and 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: 31 August 2011 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 8 January 2011. 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 1 No change 4 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: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court Martial BCD Bad Conduct Discharge GD General Discharge NIF Not in the file SPCM Special Court Martial CG Company Grade Article 15 HD Honorable Discharge OAD Ordered to Active Duty UNC Uncharacterized Discharge DD Dishonorable Discharge HS High School Graduate OMPF Official Military Personnel File UOTH Under Other Than Honorable FG Field Grade Article 15 IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE Reentry Code Conditions ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20110001690 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages