Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/11/12	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states: "An upgrade is needed so I can have a better chance at getting a job and would like to get some VA to continue getting help."

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: 100216
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 100308   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: B Co, 2/27th Inf, Schofield Barracks, HI 

Time Lost: Confinement military authority for 56 days (100107-100303).

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 091201, Disrespectful in language and deportment towards a noncommissioned officer x 2 (090714 and 090907), reduction to E1; forfeiture of $699.00 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  24
Current ENL Date: 080221    Current ENL Term: 05 Years  19 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 10 Mos, 21 Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 10 Mos, 21 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10/Infantryman   GT: 100   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Hawaii, Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (081020-091020)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-w/CS, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Calhoun, GA
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed










VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 4 February 2010, the applicant was charged with failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (100105), assault on a First Sergeant (100105), disobeying a lawful order from a First Sergeant (100105), resisting apprehension (100105), and kicking a Mr. E.S. on his person (100105).
       
       On 11 February 2010, 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 he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 23 February 2010, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.
       
       The applicant's record contains a Military Police Report, dated 5 January 2010.

       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 chehave 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issues, and the documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       The evidence of record indicates that 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 the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. 
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issue about wanting a upgrade of his discharge so he can have a better chance at getting a job and getting help from VA.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.
       
       Furthermore, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.
       
       
       
       
       In view of the foregoing, 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: 13 July 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review.

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 0    No change 5
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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA















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 AR20100027745
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages