Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2001 | 2001051964
Original file (2001051964.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
PART II - APPLICATION DATA

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

1. Character of Discharge: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions

2. Date of discharge (or REFRAD): 000525

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
a. Period entered for: 5 Years GCMDL
b. Entry date: 950518 NDSM
c. Age: 18 Years DOB: 761114 ASR
d. Educational level: HS Grad OSR
e. Aptitude area score:
          GT: NIF 3. Highest grade achieved:
f. Length of Service: E4
5 Year(s) 0 Month(s) 3 Day(s)

4. Performance evaluations:
NONE

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: The applicant has a CID Report of Investigation in file.


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 24 March 2000, the applicant was charged with dereliction of duty, in that you failed to follow proper drug distribution policies, between (990709 and 991207); two specifications. He also was charged with wrongfully possessing and distributing 2.5 ml of Butorphanol (Stadol) between (991029 and 991207); and stole Butorphanol (Stadol), of a value of about $50.00 the property of the US Army, between (991029 and 991207). On 6 May 2000, 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 indicated 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The intermediate commanders recommended approval with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 12 May 2000, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.

         b. On 25 May 2000, 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
5 years, and 3 days of active service on his current enlistment under review.

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 001231, with thirty-eight (38) 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 21 February 2001 .

         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 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. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses. The evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contentions and the applicant has provided no independent corroborating evidence in support of his contentions. In fact, the applicant’s contentions relate to evidentiary and procedural matters that would have been finally and conclusively adjudicated had the applicant not requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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 found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the applicant’s chain of command. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.

          b. Equity:       The applicant has not submitted an issue of equity and the ADRB has not otherwise relied upon an issue of equity to change the discharge. The major factors upon which the discharge was based are set forth in Parts III and IV of this decisional document.
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 2 3

         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. RIVERA
Case Reviewing Official 

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

Approval Authority:


WILSON A. SHATZER
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge
Review Board

Official:




EARNEST C. SMITH, JR.
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: 2001051964 INDEX NUMBERS: A0101
Date of Review: 010221 A0113
Character of Service: UD A9235
Date of Discharge: 000525 A9217
Authority: AR 635-200 C10 A9219
Reason: A7400 A9445
Results of Board Action/ A9411
Vote/Affirmation: NC 3-2 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 | CY2004 | AR20040003351

    Original file (AR20040003351.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. On 24 May 2000, the applicant was discharged. SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C -...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | AR2003096331

    Original file (AR2003096331.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Remarks: The applicant’s first period of lost time due to AWOL (000126- 000131) is not reflected on the DD Form 214. On 25 May 2000, the applicant was discharged. SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW 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: 2003096331...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000034994

    Original file (2000034994.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 August 1994, 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. 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 -...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000047819

    Original file (2000047819.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge as Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under other than honorable conditions. On 24 May 2000, the applicant was discharged. 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2000 | 2000042970

    Original file (2000042970.rtf) 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.3. AR Number: 2000042970 INDEX NUMBERS: A9217 Date of Review: 000712 A0100 Character of Service: UD A9307 Date of Discharge: 940928 A9445 Authority:...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | 2003087278

    Original file (2003087278.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 | CY2004 | AR20040003496

    Original file (AR20040003496.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 MR. RON WILLIAMS Case...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2002 | 2002068696

    Original file (2002068696.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    Remarks: NONE SECTION B - Prior Service Data Other discharge(s): Service From To Type Discharge RA 931112 970820 Honorable PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT l. Facts and Circumstances: a. His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions (UOHC). On 25 May 2000, the applicant was discharged.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2003 | 2003085787

    Original file (2003085787.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 Ms. McKim-Spilker Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATIONSECTION A - DIRECTIVE TO: ARBA...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2004 | AR2004105224

    Original file (AR2004105224.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 would have been 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 MR. RON...