Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060014804
Original file (AR20060014804.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Application Receipt Date: 2006/10/19	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: The applicant states that he made some mistakes while in the Army because he was young and uneducated.  Things have been hard since his discharge, he has not been able to find a good paying job.  He would like to rejoin the Army as a truck driver to help himself and his country; he wants to serve overseas.  

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?  
Yes    No        Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Original Character of Discharge
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge:    Date: 000824
Discharge Received:     Date: 020208   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Court Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: A Co, 296th FSB, Fort Lewis, WA 

Time Lost: 102 days, AWOL (000508-000814), apprehended by civil authorities at Shorter, AL and transferred to military control at Fort Knox, KY.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  790512  
Current ENL Date: 970619    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 04 Yrs, 04Mos, 11Days ?????
Total Service:  04 Yrs, 04Mos, 11Days Includes 533 days of excess leave (000825-020208).
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 77F10/Petroleum Specialist   GT: 102   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: 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 24 August 2000, the applicant was charged with AWOL (000508-000814).  On 24 August 2000, 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 recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 31 January 2002, 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 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 the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue, however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.  The applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age and found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 28 November 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: 28 November 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060014804

Applicant Name:  Mr.      
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060014173

    Original file (AR20060014173.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. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S....

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070009654

    Original file (AR20070009654.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 9 July 2002, 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013670

    Original file (AR20070013670.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 October 2004, 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 | CY2009 | AR20090012511

    Original file (AR20090012511.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The DD Form 214 indicates that 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 with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: ?????

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090005805

    Original file (AR20090005805.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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 normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060008498

    Original file (AR20060008498.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application Receipt Date: 060613 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013344

    Original file (AR20060013344.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 August 2006, after a records review by the Army Discharge Review Board the applicant's discharge was upgraded to fully honorable. 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: None Witnesses/Observers: None Exhibits Submitted: None VIII.

  • 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.

  • 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 | AR20060013803

    Original file (AR20060013803.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 recommends to the Board that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable. 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,...