Application Receipt Date: 060714	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293.

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: 060221
Discharge Received:     Date: 060324   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: 32d Transportation Company, 68th Corps Support Battalion, 43d Area Support Group, Fort Carson, CO 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040716/Stole the working components of a CN driver and another Soldier (SPC) cell phones and replace them with the nonworking components of his cell phone of a value of about $100.00 on or about (040609) and (040613)/(Field Grade)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  820323  
Current ENL Date: 030918    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 06Mos, 07Days ?????
Total Service:  02 Yrs, 06Mos, 07Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E2
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 88M10 (Motor Transport Operator)   GT: 94   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Kuwait   Combat: Iraq (040129-050129)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, ICM
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 2 February 2006, the applicant was charged with writing bad checks in the amounts of $50.00, $75.00, $100.00, and $250.00 on or between 22 November 2005 and 1 December 2005, and for stealing money from another Soldier (PFC) of value of more than $500.00 on or between 22 November 2005 and 1 December 2005.  On 16 February 2006, 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 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 submit a statement in his own behalf.  The chain of command reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 15 March 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.
      
      The applicant has a CID Report of Investigation dated 6 December 2005, in his Official Military Personnel File.
      
      
      
      
      

      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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst recommend that relief be denied in this case.  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 courts-martial.  In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated or lesser included offenses under UCMJ.  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 this prior to requesting discharge.  Further, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “4.”  An RE code of “4” can not be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment.  The analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 25 June 2007              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA



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 0    No change 5   - Character
		 			      Change 0    No change 5   - 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 and voted to deny relief.





















Case report reviewed and verified by: Eric S. Moore, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

MARK E. COLLINS
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 29 June 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060009858

Applicant Name:  Mr.      
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages