Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011477
Original file (AR20060011477.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Application Receipt Date: 060427	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: Records Review/2006/06/07

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

Issues: The applicant submitted no issues of equity or propriety to be considered by the Board.  

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: 041223
Discharge Received:     Date: 050128   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: Field Artillery, Headquarters & Headquarters Battalion, FC, Fort Hood, TX  76544-48744 

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:  800826  
Current ENL Date: 020509    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 8 Mos, 20 Days ?????
Total Service:  2 Yrs, 8 Mos, 20 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B10 Cannon Crewmember   GT: 93   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (040107-050120)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTEM, 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 17 December 2004, the applicant was charged with failing to go to his appointed place of duty X 3; (040930); (041028); (041110); disrespectful in language toward SSG X 2; (040804); (040804); with intent to deceive, make an oral statement which was false (040713); wrongfully urinate on the outside of another soldier's door (041105) and wrongfully place a fake IED in the 3-82nd Internet Café (040718).  On 20 December 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 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 not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 23 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, 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 noted 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: 18 April 2007              
Location: Chicago, IL

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: none 

Exhibits Submitted: none




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, hearing his testimony 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: 

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

Official: 


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

Case Number AR20060011477

Applicant Name:   Mr.       
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 6 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060000129C080324

    Original file (AR20060000129C080324.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. Yes No Counsel: N/A Witnesses/Observers: N/A Exhibits Submitted: N/A VIII.

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016574

    Original file (AR20060016574.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013359

    Original file (AR20070013359.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070006646C071116

    Original file (AR20070006646C071116.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 020920 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Time Lost: Absent without leave for a total of 415 days (010627-020815). 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. Board Discussion,...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060005702

    Original file (AR20060005702.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application Receipt Date: 060420 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 01Mos, 20Days ????? Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015442

    Original file (AR20060015442.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 06 Mos, 20 Days ????? 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.

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016044

    Original file (AR20060016044.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016055

    Original file (AR20060016055.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of...

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070008568

    Original file (AR20070008568.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that whether an other than honorable discharge was a proper ascription of character of service, and whether post-service conduct warrants clemency. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013564

    Original file (AR20070013564.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 April 2007, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.