Application Receipt Date: 061201
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: 020131
Discharge Received: Date: 020213
Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE: SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: E Co, 2-58 IN, Fort Benning, GA
Time Lost: AWOL x 1 for 63 days (010104-010306), apprehended
Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Counseling Records Available: Yes No
IV. Soldier's Overall Record
DOB: 790307
Current ENL Date: 001108 Current ENL Term: 3 Years
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 01 Mos, 04 Days
Total Service: 01 Yrs, 01 Mos, 04 Days Includes 336 days of excess leave from (001027-011107)
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E1
Performance Ratings Available: Yes No
MOS: None GT: NIF EDU: GED Cert Overseas: None Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None
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 14 March 2001, the applicant was charged with AWOL from (010104-010307). On 14 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. On 8 February 2002, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.
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 and the issues 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: 21 December 2007
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.
Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner
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:
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE
Case Number AR20060016574
Applicant Name: Mr.
______________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 5 pages
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060008944
The separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 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.
AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015432
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. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE:...
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070010692
Applicant Name: ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 01 Mos, 05Days ????? 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 | AR20070013364
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.
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015432C080324
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. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015478
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 01 Mos, 29 Days Item 12c on DD Form 214, net active service this period is incorrect, should read 01 Yrs, 01 Mos, 29 Days. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individuals admission of guilt. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 28 November 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S....
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016536
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. Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060014785
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...
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013564
On 20 April 2007, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individuals admission of guilt.
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070009976
Applicant Name: ????? Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. However, in review of the applicants entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.