Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/01/07	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, through counsel, in effect, that while in Arizona the applicant was involved in an altercation during weekend leave while returning from a short trip to Mexico.  Upon his return to Japan the special operations team requested that the applicant submit a drug test; the applicant was subsequently informed that the test came back positive for cocaine.  He was charged with disobeying a lawful order, AWOL, and positive urinalysis.  While waiting for decision as to whether he was going to be discharged; go before a court martial; or receive an administrative reprimand he was in a car accident and arrested by the Japanese police.  His unit never contacted him or assisted him in any way.  It was only after his mother contacted the inspector general that he finally received help.  The applicant’s discharge was improper because an error of discretion existed that prejudiced towards the applicant.  The applicant’s character of service and narrative reason for discharge represent an inequity and does not reflect his meritorious tour in Afghanistan and Japan.  The applicant’s behavior is a result of his first term of service and subsequently diagnosed PTSD.  The applicant takes full responsibility for his actions, but asks the Board to recognize that his misconduct was caused, at its root by his PTSD, and that his judgment and behavior are only external indicators of his inner struggles.  He is now receiving VA treatment for his PTSD and is attempting to re-enter the civilian world without the prejudices of a dishonorable discharge.  Prior to arriving home from his tour of duty in Afghanistan, the applicant had not history of behavioral issues and since his separation from the Army he as attended PTSD counseling, achieved academically and reintegrated into society.  

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   ?????

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 061007   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: Headquarters Support Company, 1st Battalion, 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne), Okinawa, Japan 

Time Lost: None

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 031224    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 9 Mos, 14Days ?????
Total Service:  		6 Yrs, 1 Mos, 3  Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-6		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 96B1S Intelligence Analyst   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Afghanistan (030103 - 030828)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM x 2, AAM x 2, AGCM, NDSM, ACM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NPDR, ASR, OSR




V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Miami, FL
Post Service Accomplishments: None

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  
       
       The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS (i.e., for the good of the Service-in lieu of trial by court-martial) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "4."  
       
       On 18 September 2006, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  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, 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 and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       The DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, which was authenticated by the applicant.  The DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  
       
       Procedurally, the applicant was required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily, and in writing, request 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.  In the absence of information to the contrary, the analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  It also noted the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant would have been aware of it prior to requesting discharge.
       
       The applicant's contentions were carefully considered.  However, the analyst is unable to determine whether these contentions have merit because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown.  The burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents, (discharge packet to include the Charge Sheet, DD form 458) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will still be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record.
       
       Therefore, based on the available evidence, the analyst presumes government regularity in the discharge process and concludes that it appears 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 August 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 with a statement from counsel, various awards, medals, badges, recommendations, orders, a journal article and a DD Form 214.

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: No Change
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 AR20110000613
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages