Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015432C080324
Original file (AR20060015432C080324.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

Application Receipt Date: 2006/11/01

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See attached DD Form 293 along with supporting documents submitted
by applicant.

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: 01/01/11
Discharge Received:     Date: 01/02/01
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location:

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:  77/05/10
Current ENL Date: 97/11/13    Current ENL Term: 3 Years       
Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 02Mos, 19Days      
Total Service:  03 Yrs, 02Mos, 19Days      
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No
MOS: 14S10 Avenger Crewmember   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None
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 26 September 2000, the applicant
was charged with wrongfully distribution of less than 30 grams of marijuana
X 2 (000609), (000711) and one count of conspiracy to distribute less than
30 grams of marijuana (000711).  On 18 December 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 submitted a statement
in his own behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate commanders
recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
 On 22 January 2001, 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.


      The record contains a CID report dated 31 August 2000.

      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 that the
applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.  Therefore, the
analyst determined that 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:      
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          No change         -
Character
                                   Change          No change         -
Reason
                                   (Board member names available upon
request)

IX.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
     

Case report reviewed and verified by: Earl Silver, Examiner

X.  Board Action Directed
No Change
Issue a new DD Form 214
Change Characterization to:
Change Reason to:      
Other:      
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:      
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder

Similar Decisions

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015432

    Original file (AR20060015432.txt) 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. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE:...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060010974

    Original file (AR20060010974.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application Receipt Date: 060628 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. 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. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080000626

    Original file (AR20080000626.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The unit commander's recommendation for approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge is not part of the available record and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge 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.

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070007539

    Original file (AR20070007539.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. The Board found that the applicant's overall length and quality of service, to include...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016536

    Original file (AR20060016536.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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070007539aC071121

    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 | AR20070007000C071116

    Original file (AR20070007000C071116.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 July 2005, 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. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst recommend that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070007000aC071121

    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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst recommend that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. ...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070007000C071116

    Original file (AR20070007000C071116.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Yes No Counsel: Witnesses/Observers: 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 0 No change 5 - Character Change 0...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070010707

    Original file (AR20070010707.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 02Mos, 04Days Based on the enlistment records and the period of AWOL the applicant's DD Form 214 Item 12c "Net Active Service this period incorrectly reads as: years 00, months 01, and days 25, 12c should read as : years 00, months 02, and days 04. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who...