Application Receipt Date: 070122

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD form 293 and attached documents.

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: 060726
Discharge Received:     Date: 060816
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: D Company 1st Bn 50th Inf Fort Benning, GA 31905

Time Lost: AWOL-95 days (051127-060301), surrendered to military
authorities at Fort Benning, GA.  Applicant was directed to proceed to Fort
Knox, Ky and failed to comply. AWOL again for 102 days (060305-060614),
apprehended by civil authorities at Vestavia Hills, AL on 15 June 2006 and
transferred to for Knox, Ky.  Applicant was AWOL for a total 197 days.

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  860802
Current ENL Date: 060419    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  applicant was placed
on excess leave for 37 days (060711-060816).
Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 04 Mos, 10 Days      
Total Service:  00 Yrs, 04 Mos, 10 Days      
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E2
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No
MOS: None   GT: 109   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: Chicago, IL
Current Address: 3615 W 64th Street
Chicago IL 60629
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 22 June 2006, the applicant was
charged with AWOL (051127-060301) and (060305-060614).  On 22 June 2006,
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 28 July 2006, 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 careful review of all the applicant's military records during
the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents he
submitted, the analyst recommend that the applicant's request for an
upgrade of his characterization of service be denied.  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 courts-martial.  In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the
stipulated or lesser included offenses under UCMJ.  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 this
prior to requesting discharge.  Further, at the time of 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.  The analyst determined that the reason for
discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and
equitable.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing:                  Date: 16 April 2007
Location: Chicago, IL

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No

Counsel: No

Witnesses/Observers: No

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
characterization of service was too harsh and as a result, it is
inequitable. The Board noted that the applicant was in entry-level status
when he returned from a period of AWOL (i.e., he had completed less than
180 days of continuous active duty).  The applicant was charged with AWOL
and while still in an entry-level status voluntarily requested discharge
under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  In essence the applicant’s separation action was initiated while
the applicant was in an entry-level status and command had the option to
characterize his service under other than honorable conditions or to
describe his service as uncharacterized.  Notwithstanding the propriety of
the applicant’s discharge, the Board concluded that the applicant’s service
should now be described as uncharacterized.  The Board found that the
circumstances surrounding the discharge mitigated the discrediting entries
in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant reliefin the
form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to unchcharacterized.
 However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both
proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  This action does not
entail a restoration of grade.







Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner

X.  Board Action Directed
No Change
Issue a new DD Form 214
Change Characterization to:
Change Reason to: None
Other: NA
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: 8 May 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder