Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY1999 | 1999025579
Original file (1999025579.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): 971007

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:
                            ARCOM SWASMDL
a. Period entered for: 4 Years GCMDL KLMDL
b. Entry date: 940602 NDSM
c. Age: 28 Years DOB: 650729 ASR
d. Educational level: HS Grad NCOPDR
e. Aptitude area score: OSR
          GT: 113 3. Highest grade achieved:
f. Length of Service: E5
3 Years 4 Months 6 Days

4. Performance evaluations:
See OMPF

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

5. Periods of unauthorized absence: NONE

 Status Inclusive dates
         AWOL

         Mil conf

         Civil conf

         Other


6. Nonjudicial punishment: NONE
         Date     Offense(s)
        


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


Other discharge(s):

          Service   From      To        Type Discharge
         USAR     900815   900930   NA
         RA       901001   921206   HD
         RA       921207   940601   HD



PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW

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

         a. The evidence of record shows that a court-martial charge, for violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ, for obtaining services under false pretenses, was preferred against the applicant. On 11 September 1997 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 in his own behalf. On 19 September 1997, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he receive a UOHC discharge, and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.

         b. On 7 October 1997, the applicant was separated with a UOHC discharge. At the time of discharge, the applicant had completed 3 years, 4 months, 6 days of his current enlistment, and a total of 7 years and 7 days of active military service.

          c. The applicant’s record shows that he completed over 7 years of service; that he attained the rank of sergeant/E-5; and that he earned three Army Commendation Medals, two Good Conduct Medals, the Southwest Asia Service Medal/with 2 bronze service stars, and the Kuwait Liberation Medal. The applicant’s disciplinary record is not in the available records; however, it is clear that a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant that was punishable with a punitive discharge under the provisions of the UCMJ. After consulting counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested an administrative separation in order to avoid prosecution and the punitive discharge which may have resulted.
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 990408.
         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 16 June 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 noted the applicant’s contention that, in effect, he was innocent of any intentional wrongdoing and there was no evidence that he was guilty. However, 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 considered the applicant’s entire record of service for the period 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.

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       

                                 
MR. ADRIANCE
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: 1999025579 INDEX NUMBERS: A9217
Date of Review: 990616 A9411
Character of Service: UD A0100
Date of Discharge: 971007
Authority: AR 635-200 C10
Reason: A7000
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.      PO      X          X    





Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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,...

  • 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 | 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 | 1999023640

    Original file (1999023640.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 | CY1998 | 1998014518

    Original file (1998014518.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 | 1999025076

    Original file (1999025076.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. EXHIBITS: A -...

  • 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 | 1999022263

    Original file (1999022263.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,...