Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060012951
Original file (AR20060012951.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Application Receipt Date: 06/09/08	

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: 04/07/27
Discharge Received:     Date: 040817   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Court Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: HHC/3-7 IN, Fort Stewart, GA 31314 

Time Lost: 100 days, AWOL from 031205 to 040315.  The applicant returned to his place of duty on 040315.  

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None in file.  However, DA Form 2-1 indicates soldier was demoted from SPC to PFC on 020201

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  810929  
Current ENL Date: 010506    Current ENL Term: 5 Years  DD 214 does not reflect the applicant reenlisted while serving in Korea on 010506 after serving 02/00/02
Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 00Mos, 01 Days ?????
Total Service:  05 Yrs, 00Mos, 03 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA-990504-010505/HD, not reflected in current DD214
Highest Grade: E-4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19D10, Cav Scout   GT: 110   EDU: GED   Overseas: Korea   Combat: Iraq (030120-030826)
Decorations/Awards: KDSM, PUC, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: ?????

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record indicates that on 19 July 2004 the applicant was charged with AWOL (031205-040315).  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 submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 6 August 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 carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The analyst does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The analyst found that the length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable.  

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 10 October 2007              
Location: Washington, D.C.

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: Alejandro Champin, 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: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 12 October 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060012951

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 5 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060007090

    Original file (AR20060007090.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the independent evidence he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would warrant an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the...

  • 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 | 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060009751

    Original file (AR20060009751.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 00Mos, 26Days ????? 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, 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060010487

    Original file (AR20060010487.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application Receipt Date: 060728 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 00Mos, 17Days ????? 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 | CY2006 | AR20060014128

    Original file (AR20060014128.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 | CY2008 | AR20080004812

    Original file (AR20080004812.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. However, there was no charge sheet in the available record, The separation authority approved the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial on 19 October 2004. 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 trial by court-martial with a characterization...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080005564

    Original file (AR20080005564.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 22 June 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense for having received a Filed Grade Article, a Company Grade Article, and several negative counseling statements, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Board Action Directed President, Army...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070009641

    Original file (AR20070009641.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.

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016049

    Original file (AR20060016049.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 March 2003, 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. 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...