Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/01/12	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he requests his discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions with an RE code of "3" so he can rejoin the military.  He states, he was told that his discharge would be upgraded after six months of discharge.  

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: 031014
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 031113   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: HHC, 5th Bn, 158th Avn Reg, Wurzburg, Germany 

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:  20
Current ENL Date: 001101    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 00 Mos, 13 Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 00 Mos, 13 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 77F10/Petroleum Supply Specialist   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, ASR, OSR

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 21 July 2003, the applicant was charged with making a false official statement (030120), unlawfully striking Soldiers with a close fist x 3 (020629), unlawfully striking a person with a close fist (030119), assault by kicking a Soldier in the face and did intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm (030119).  
       
       On 8 October 2003, 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 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 and intermediate commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 24 October 2003, 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 E-1. 

       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 issues and 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 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 the applicant was aware of it prior to requesting discharge.  
       
       The analyst also noted the applicant's request to change his RE code; however, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry (RE) codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Furthermore, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “4.”  An RE code of “4” cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. 
       
       Further, the analyst noted the applicant’s issue about his request for an upgrade based on the time that has elapsed since his discharge.  However, the U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade a discharge based on time elapsed since the discharge.  Each case is decided on its own merits based on all factors contained in the OMPF or as submitted by the applicant.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.
       
       Therefore, 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: 8 August 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: yes (redacted)

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 149 dated, 7 January 2011, DD Form 214, various OMPF documents. 

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						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)

X.  Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to: 
Change Reason to: No Change
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




ARCHIE L. DAVIS III
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder












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 AR20120001348
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 3 pages