Application Receipt Date: 060725	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See 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: NIF
Discharge Received:     Date: 031126   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu Of Trail By Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: United States Army Recruiting Battalion, New England, Topsham, ME 04086  

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  740628  
Current ENL Date: 000712/OAD    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  01 Mos, 07 Days
Current ENL Service: 03  Yrs, 04 Mos, 15 Days ?????
Total Service:  07  Yrs, 03 Mos, 07 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: USAR-960819-970102/NA
                                      ADT-970103-980409/HD
                                      USAR-980410-990220/NA
                                      ADT-990221-990305/NA
                                     USAR-990305-000711/NA
Highest Grade: E5
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 79R20 Recruiter/91P10 X-Ray Spec   GT: 98   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM (2), AAM (2), AGCM, ARCAM, NDSM (2), NCOPDR, ASR, GRBDGE w/3SS, C/Ach (7), COT (2), 
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 applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

      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 available military records during the period of enlistment under review and the issue he submited, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army.  However, the applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  Procedurally, the applicant was required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily, and in writing, request 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.  In the absence of information to the contrary, it is presumed that all 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 would have been aware of that prior to requesting discharge.  Furthermore, 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.  Therefore, the analyst determined that 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: 18 July 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, voted to deny relief.





















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

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 31 July 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060010385

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 6 of 6 pages