Application Receipt Date: 070529
Prior Review Prior Review Date: 061018/Records Review
I. Applicant Request
Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change
Issues: See applicant's attached 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: NIF
Discharge Received: Date: 050831
Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE: SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: 155th Cargo Transfer Company, 10th Transportation Battalion, Fort Eustis, VA 23604
Time Lost: None
Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Counseling Records Available: Yes No
IV. Soldiers Overall Record
DOB:
Current ENL Date: 030912 Current ENL Term: 03 Years ?????
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 11Mos, 19Days ?????
Total Service: 04 Yrs, 02Mos, 26Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA-010605-030911/HD
Highest Grade: E5
Performance Ratings Available: Yes No
MOS: 92F10 (Petroleum Supply Specialist) GT: 124 EDU: GED Overseas: Southwest Asia Combat: Iraq (030303-040304)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM (2d Award), AGCM, ICM, NDSM, ASR, GWOTSM
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 the applicant was charged with conspiracy to commit an offense under the Uniform Code Of Military Justice, to wit: larceny of three Snap-On mechanics tool tool boxes, of a value estimated at $5,000.00, property of the 155th Cargo Transfer Company. In order to effect the objects of the conspiracy, did wrongfully take three Snap-On mechanics tool tool boxes, property of the United States Army, remove this property from control of the United States Army and transport said property to the State of West Virginia for the purpose of converting said property to their own use. 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. Furthermore, 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 veterans benefits. The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf. 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.
The applicant has a CID Report of Investigation dated 20 June 2005, in his Official Military Personnel File.
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 individuals 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 applicants 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. The analyst noted the applicants issue, and found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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: 5 November 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No
Counsel:
Witnesses/Observers: None
Exhibits Submitted: None
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 5 No change 0 - Character
Change 0 No change 5 - Reason
(Board member names available upon request)
IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony and considering the analysts recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. The Board found that the applicant's overall length and quality of service, to include his combat service, and his post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. This action entails a restoration of grade to SGT/E5
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: E5
XI. Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority:
MARK E. COLLINS
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board
Official:
CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 9 November 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070007539aC071121
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 | AR20060008222
Current ENL Service: 04 Yrs, 00 Mos, 22 Days ????? On 9 June 2005, the unit commander recommended approval of the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 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.
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060014806
Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 940418 Discharge Received: Date: 940516 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: U.S. Army Personnel Center (USARPERCEN) St. Loius, MO 63132 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. On 21 April 1994, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under...
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100019679
Applicant Name: ????? It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and the applicant was aware of it prior to requesting discharge. Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 22 July 2010.
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060012653
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 09 Mos, 14 Days ????? 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 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.
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060010456
On 30 April 2003, 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. 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...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013463
On 25 August 1997, 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. 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...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060009439
On 6 May 1992, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individuals admission of guilt. 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: SGT/E5 XI.
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060012210
On 12 December 1991, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individuals admission of guilt. 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: SGT/E5 XI.
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060010459
Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 11 Mos, 20 Days ????? Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other:...