Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999021506
Original file (1999021506.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
PART II - APPLICATION DATA

(Note: Part I deleted under the Privacy Act on Reading Room copy)

1. Character of Discharge: UOHC

2. Date of discharge (or REFRAD): 951019

3. Authority for separation:

         a. Regulation: Chapter 10, AR 635-200

          b. Reason: In Lieu of trial by Court-Martial
4. Prior review(s): NONE


PART III - SERVICE HISTORY

SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review

 1.       Service data: 2. Awards and decorations:
                            NDSM
a. Period entered for: 3 Years ASR
b. Entry date: 920605
c. Age: 21 Years DOB: 701219
d. Educational level: HS Grad
e. Aptitude area score:
          GT: 95 3. Highest grade achieved:
f. Length of Service: E4
3 Year(s) 2 Month(s) 19 Day(s)

4. Performance evaluations:
NONE

PART III - SERVICE HISTORY
SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review - Continued

5. Periods of unauthorized absence:

Status Inclusive dates
         AWOL 950410-950605

         Mil conf

         Civil conf

         Other


6. Nonjudicial punishment:

         Date     Offense(s)
         950127 Wrongfully used cocaine between (941122 and 941222)

7. Court-Martial data: NONE
         a. SCM:
                  Date Offense(s)

        
         b. SPCM:
                  Date Offense(s)

         c. GCM: 
                  Date Offense(s)


8.       Remarks: NONE
SECTION B - Prior Service Data
NONE

Other discharge(s):

          Service   From      To        Type Discharge





PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW

SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT
l. Facts and Circumstances:

         a. The evidence of record shows that on 9 June 1995, the applicant was charged with AWOL (950410-950606). On 9 June 1995, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter l0, 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 stated that he understood that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits. The applicant did not submit a statement on his own behalf. The unit commander and intermediate commander recommended approval of an UOHC discharge. On
27 September 1995, the separation authority approved the discharge with an UOHC discharge. The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.

         b. On 19 October 1995, the applicant was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge, under the provisions of Chapter l0, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of discharge, the applicant had
3 years, 2 months, and 19 days on his current enlistment and 57 days lost time.

 2. Legal/Regulatory Basis for Separation Action : Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter l0 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 requests 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 UOHC is normally considered appropriate.

SECTION B-APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS


 1. Issue(s) of propriety and/or equity submitted by applicant or counsel.
As stated on applicant’s DD Form 293.
2. Exhibit(s) submitted:

         A-1: DD Form 293, dated 990201, with two (2) enclosure(s).
         A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE
         B-l: Other Documents: NONE

PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW (CONTINUED)



SECTION C - Medical and/or Legal Advisory Opinion


Referred to ( ) Medical Advisor ( ) Legal Advisor



 a. Medical prehearing comments (if applicable):

b. Legal prehearing comments (if applicable):
PART V - SUMMARY OF HEARING

SECTION A-Attendees and exhibits

1. Review/hearing information:

         a. Type requested:
         ( X ) Records review ( ) Hearing

         b. Type Held:
         ( X )Records review ( ) Hearing
         ( ) Tender Offer
         c. Review/hearing location and date: Washington, DC on 10 March 1999

         d. Appearance by:
         Applicant ( ) Yes ( X ) No
         Counsel ( ) Yes ( X ) No

          e. Applicant testified: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
        
         f. Counsel presentation: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
        
         g. Witness(es) testified: ( ) Yes ( X ) No
        
2. Exhibit(s) submitted at hearing:

PART VI - ISSUES AND FINDINGS

1. a. Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity:

          ( X )   Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A of this case report and directive.
         ( )     Revised issue(s) furnished in writing by applicant as follows:
         ( )     Additional issue(s) identified during review/hearing as follows:
         b. Request: ( X ) Recharacterization ( ) Change of Reason


2. Finding(s), conclusion(s), and reason(s) for the Board's decision(s) on issues of propriety and/or equity:

          a. Propriety:    The applicant has not submitted an issue of propriety and the ADRB has not otherwise relied upon an issue of propriety to change the discharge.

          b. Equity:       The parenthetical number(s) below correspond(s) to the issue number(s) on the DD Form 293, or in Part VI, Paragraph 1, above.

 (1) The issue is rejected. The Board carefully examined the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review. The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that he served his country to the best of his ability, that he served most of his enlistment in foreign countries, and that it was difficult to adjust to the US after spending so much time in foreign countries. The Board also noted the applicant’s contentions that the emotional strain and trauma he was experiencing, the marital and family problems, and the very limited assistance by his command, impaired his ability to make the right decisions regarding his career. 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 Board noted that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated offenses under the UCMJ. The Board 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 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. Finally, the Board determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct that led to the separation action under review. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.

 (2) The issue is rejected. The Army Discharge Review Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Additionally, eligibility for veteran's benefits, to include educational benefits under the 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.
3. Response(s) to item(s) not addressed as decisional issue(s): NONE
PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION A - Conclusions/Decisions/Vote

1.       Board conclusion(s):

         The discharge was:

          ( X )    Proper.
         ( )      Improper as to characterization. Change characterization to                                      .
         ( )      Improper as to reason. Change reason to                         under                       .

         ( X )    Equitable.
         ( )      Inequitable as to characterization. Change characterization to                                .
         ( )      Inequitable as to reason. Change reason to                       
                  under                                  .
         ( )      Both proper and equitable, but characterization/reason for separation cited was an administrative/clerical error and should be changed to                      under                          .
2. Voting record: Change No Change
         Reason 0 5
Characterization 0 5

         The names and votes of the members of the Board are recorded in Part IX of this document and can be obtained by writing to the address below. The request must contain the CASE NO. located in the upper right corner of this document.

Department of the Army Review Boards Agency
ATTN: Promulgation Team
1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, 2nd Floor
Arlington, VA 22202-4508



3. Minority views: NONE

PART VII - BOARD ACTION
SECTION B - Verification and Authentication

Case report reviewed and verified       

                                 
MRS. WADE
Case Reviewing Official 

PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATION
SECTION A - DIRECTIVE
NONE
SECTION B - CERTIFICATION

Approval Authority:


THOMAS J. ALLEN
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge
Review Board

Official:




SUZANNE WALKER
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder

EXHIBITS:
A - Application for review of discharge          C - Other
B - Material submitted by applicant

INDEX RECORD:

 AR Number: 1999021506 INDEX NUMBERS: A9217
Date of Review: 990310 A0100
Character of Service: UD A9201
Date of Discharge: 951019 A9307
Authority: AR 635-200 C10
Reason: A7100
Results of Board Action/
Vote/Affirmation: NC 5-0 A













PART IX - VOTING RECORD

 Name  Reason Characterization
 CHANGE NC HON UHC NC UNCHAR

1.      Mbr      X          X    
2.      Mbr      X          X    
3.      Mbr      X          X    
4.      Mbr      X          X    
5.      Mbr      X          X    

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2004 | AR2004104077

    Original file (AR2004104077.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    SECTION B - Prior Service Data Other discharge(s): Service From To Type Discharge RA 891004 930303 Honorable PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT l. Facts and Circumstances: a. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MR. RIVERA Case Reviewing...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | AR20050006314

    Original file (AR20050006314.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It 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 Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified Ms. McKim-Spilker Case...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999019237

    Original file (1999019237.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter l0 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. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MRS. WADE Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B -...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999025883

    Original file (1999025883.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Prior review(s): NONE PART III - SERVICE HISTORY SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review 1. Chapter l0 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. EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted by applicant

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999015552

    Original file (1999015552.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter l0 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. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified MRS. WADE Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B -...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1998 | 1998014420

    Original file (1998014420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 February 1988, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter l0, AR 635-200 for the good of the Service-in lieu of court-martial. It 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. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999025906

    Original file (1999025906.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter l0 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 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 Board,...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999022379

    Original file (1999022379.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter l0 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 Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.3. PART VII - BOARD ACTIONSECTION B - Verification and...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999015462

    Original file (1999015462.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter l0 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 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 Board,...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999017704

    Original file (1999017704.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter l0 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 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 Board,...