Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015422
Original file (AR20060015422.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Application Receipt Date: 20061030	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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: 950816
Discharge Received:     Date: 951106   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In lieu of trial by court martial        
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, Fort Bragg, North Carolina 

Time Lost: Absent without leave for 33 days (950706-950808).  Surrendered to military authorities at FT Lewis, WA (950809) and was transferred to Fort Sill, OK. 

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: 940217    Current ENL Term:  4  Years  17 weeks
Current ENL Service:   01   Yrs,   07  Mos,   16  Days Includes 81 days of excess leave (950817-951105).
Total Service:    01   Yrs,   07  Mos,   16  Days      
Previous Discharges:   none
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10 Infantryman   GT: 112    EDU: HS Grad      Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR / NDSM / PCHTBDG
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 16 August 1995, the applicant was charged with AWOL (950706-950808).   On 17 August 1995, 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.  On 19 October 1995, 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, 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.  Furthermore, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3."  If the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.   Therefore, the analyst determined 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: 12 December 2007              
Location: Washington D.C.

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   1      No change   4     - 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. 

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: NA 
Other: NA 
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: 14 December 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080003792

    Original file (AR20080003792.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060010487

    Original file (AR20060010487.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application Receipt Date: 060728 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 00Mos, 17Days ????? 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013358

    Original file (AR20060013358.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060014936

    Original file (AR20060014936.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: I wish for my discharge to be upgraded because I was young and committed a very stupid action. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 740829 Current ENL Date: 930806 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070009993

    Original file (AR20070009993.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The memorandum further indicates that the applicant's request was disapproved, and his defense counsel requested reconsideration of the applicant's request for separation in lieu of courts-martial. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080000225

    Original file (AR20080000225.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 2 No change 3 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S....

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060006710

    Original file (AR20060006710.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060014814

    Original file (AR20060014814.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060006020

    Original file (AR20060006020.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080007487

    Original file (AR20080007487.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Applicant Name: ????? The applicant's unit commander recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with a general under honorable conditions discharge. 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 based on the applicant’s length and quality of his...