Application Receipt Date: 070615	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 with four (4) attachments.

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: 050222
Discharge Received:     Date: 050401   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: B Company, 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, Fort Wainwright, AK  99703 

Time Lost: AWOL, for a total of 112 days from (040803-041122).  The applicant was apprehended by the civilian authorities in Denton, TX, and transferred to the military authorities at Fort Sill, OK  73503-5100.  

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  851206  
Current ENL Date: 040310    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  16 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 9 Mos, 0 Days The applicant was placed on excess leave for a total of 120 days from (041203-050401).
Total Service:  0 Yrs, 9 Mos, 0 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E2
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10 Infantryman   GT: NIF   EDU: Ged Certif   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, 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 2 December 2004, the former service member was charged with AWOL, from (3 August 2004 to 23 November 2004).  On 3 December 2004, the former service member 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 former service member admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense.  Further, the former service member 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 former service member did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 9 March 2005, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The former service member 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 former service member's military records, documents and the issue submitted on behalf of the former service member, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the former service member's discharge.  The evidence of record shows the former service member was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  The former service member consulted with defense counsel, and voluntarily in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, the former service member 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 former service member 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 former service member was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.  Furthermore, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the mother of the former service member should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  In view of the foregoing, 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: 11 July 2007              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: N/A

Witnesses/Observers: N/A 

Exhibits Submitted: N/A

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 former service member'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, voted to deny relief.  

Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Ron Williams, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: N/A
Other: N/A
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: N/A

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 31 July 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070008309

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 4 pages