Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016545
Original file (AR20060016545.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Application Receipt Date: 061129	

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: 011129
Discharge Received:     Date: 020107   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: 511th MP Co, Fort Drum, NY 

Time Lost: AWOL for 36 days (000919-001024), surrendered. 

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier's Overall Record
DOB:  810615  
Current ENL Date: 000119    Current ENL Term: 3 Years       
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 10Mos, 13Days      
Total Service:  01 Yrs, 10Mos, 13Days includes 416 days of excess leave (001118-020107)
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-2
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 63B10/Light Wheel vehicle mech   GT: 105   EDU: College Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: 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 17 November 2000, the applicant was charged with AWOL (000919-001024).  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 submit a statement in his own behalf; however, the statement is not in the available record.  The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 4 December 2001, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request 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 available military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicant's characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as his record of misconduct.  The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant's characterization of service is now too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst noted that the circumstances surrounding his AWOL mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Furthermore, 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. Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant's characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.   However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable.     
      
VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date:                    
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          No change         - Character
		 			      Change          No change         - 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 AR20060016545

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060005710

    Original file (AR20060005710.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 4 March 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense (abuse of illegal drugs "cocaine"), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080004274

    Original file (AR20080004274.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. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade:...

  • 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 | AR20080005112

    Original file (AR20080005112.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 13 March 1995, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-pattern of misconduct for his lack of respect for Army rules and regulations coupled with acts of misconduct which bring discredit to the Army, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 5 May 1995, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090009952

    Original file (AR20090009952.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 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.

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015164

    Original file (AR20060015164.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 27 August 2003, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070011782

    Original file (AR20070011782.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 10Mos, 13Days ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 23 November 1994, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for failure of two consecutive Army Physical Fitness Test, with a honorable discharge. Regulations currently in effect list the narrative reason for separation as “Physical Standards.” Accordingly,...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060012218

    Original file (AR20060012218.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080004812

    Original file (AR20080004812.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. However, there was no charge sheet in the available record, The separation authority approved the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial on 19 October 2004. His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu trial by court-martial with a characterization...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013359

    Original file (AR20070013359.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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.