Application Receipt Date: 2006/09/26	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: Regrets not taking the anthrax shot and wants to reenlist.

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: 030918
Discharge Received:     Date: 031001   
Chapter: 10     AR: 635-200
Reason: In lieu of trial by court martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3d Battalion, 3d Infantry Division (Mech), Fort Benning, GA 

Time Lost: Absent without leave on two occasions totaling 1591 days (990422-000304 and 000308-030912). Applicant was apprehended (000308) and returned to Fort Knox, KY (000309).  No excess leave.

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  770502  
Current ENL Date: 990205    Current ENL Term:  3  Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 00  Yrs,  03 Mos, 11  Days ?????
Total Service:  02   Yrs,   06  Mos,   06  Days   The DD214 is in error and does not reflect that the Applicant completed his first term of service on 990204 and reenlisted on 990205.  Block 12.a (Date entered active duty this period) which reads 19961119 should read 19990205.  Additionally, block 12.c (Net active service this period) which reads 00020501, should read 00020606. 
Previous Discharges: RA 961119-990204  HD 
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19K10 M1 Armor Crewman   GT: 98    EDU: HS Grad    Overseas: Germany (970323-990320)     Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR/ OSR/ AFEM
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments:  None listed but states in his 293 that he works for the State of Florida and now has two daughters.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 18 Sep 2003, the applicant was charged with AWOL (990422-000304 and 000308-030912).  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 1 Oct 2003, 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 documents, and the issue he 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 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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue regarding his desire to re-enlist; however, at the time of the 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 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: 2007/11/15              
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: Edgar Yanger, 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: ?????

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 



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

Official: 





CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 2007/11/19
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060013806

Applicant Name:  Mr.       
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages