Application Receipt Date: 060223	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

I.  Applicant Request
Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that  she believe her discharge should be changed for the following reasons: (1) I never received an Article 15, negative counseling statements  or any other form of corrective discipline during my 3 years of active duty. (2) AR 635-200(6 June 2005) 10-2, Personal decision, p 76. A) Commanders will ensure that a soldier is not coerced into submitting a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The soldier will be given a reasonable time (not less than 72 hours) to counsult with consulting counsel (see para 3-7h) and to consider the wisdom of submitting such a request for discharge. My appointed counselor was CPT.  During my initial interview I was informed my only option was to accept a Chapter 10, In lieu of Court Martial Discharge and instructed me on how to submit a General Discharge request. I was notified my chain of command would only agree to such whether I committed the alleged act or not. Or, I would go to jail and worry about the son I would be leaving behind. These statements were made repeatedly. Any effort to develop, support or hear my defense on my counselor's behalf was not considered or permitted. Approximately, 01 December 2004, I submitted my packet as ordered. (B) Consulting counsel will advise the soldier concerning---(2) Burden of Proof.  At the completion of the investigation process, Criminal Investigation Defense(CID) DID NOT file criminal charges against me nor were any filed by the individual I allegedly committed the unlawful act against.  (3) AR 635-200 (6 June 2005) 10-4. Consideration of Request. B) Consideration should be given to the soldier's potential for rehabilitation, and his/her entire record should be reviewed before taking action per this chapter.  I was excluded form this option and no one in my chain of command made an effort to suggest a review.    

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?  
Yes    No        Tender Offer:   ?????

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Original Character of Discharge
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge:    Date: 041130
Discharge Received:     Date: 050111   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: HQ & HQ Troop, 1st Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA  92310 

Time Lost: None

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

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  701016  
Current ENL Date: Reenl/030823    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 4 Mos, 19 Days ?????
Total Service:  9 Yrs, 4 Mos, 3 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: USAR-950907-951228/NA
                                      IADT-951229-970201/Unchar
                                      USAR-970202-010806/NA
                                      RA-010807-030822/HD
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F10 Petroleum Supply Specialist   GT: 115   EDU: 14 Years   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 

Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 21 September 2004, the applicant was charged with stealing $119.50, of a value less than $500.00, the property of a SGT (040603), and with intent to defraud, made the signature of a SGT, as an indorsement to a certain allotment (040526).  On 4 October 2004, 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 that she understood that she 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 submitted a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 30 November 2004, the intermediate commander recommended approval with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 30 November 2004, the senior intermediate commander recommended approval with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 1 December 2004, 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.  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 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 she submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that 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 found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and 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 that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 20 December 2006              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: N/A

Witnesses/Observers: N/A 

Exhibits Submitted: N/A




VIII.  Board Decision
The discharge was:			Proper	 	Improper	
				                 	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

The characterization of service was:   Proper	 	Improper	
				                 	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

The narrative reasons were: 	       	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

DRB voting record:  		      	Change     No change    (Character)
		 			       	Change     No change    (Reason)
					      (Board member names available upon request)

IX.  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, voted to deny relief.  
























Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Ron Williams, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: None
Other: None
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: None

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

ROBERT L. HOUSE
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 22 December 2006
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060002684

Applicant Name:          
______________________________________________________________________


Page 6 of 6 pages