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