Application Receipt Date: 070628

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293 and supporting 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: 030806
Discharge Received:     Date: 030910
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 12th
Infantry, 3d Brigade Combat Team, Fort Carson, CO

Time Lost: Absent without leave for a total of 58 days (030401-030528).
The applicant returned to his unit of assignment.

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  691103
Current ENL Date: 020418    Current ENL Term: 03 Years       
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 02Mos, 25Days (Records show that the applicant
was AWOL (030401-030528), however, item 12c "Net Active Service This
Period" of the applicant's DD Form 214 reads: 01 years, 03 months, and 23
days, which does not account for 28 days of AWOL time.  Therefore, based on
the period of AWOL Item 12c should read: 01 years, 02 months, and 25 days).
Total Service:  01 Yrs, 02Mos, 25Days      
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No
MOS: 92Y10 (Supply Specialist)   GT: NIF   EDU: BA Degree   Overseas: None
 Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, 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 5 August 2003, the applicant was
charged with going AWOL from 1 April 2003 to 29 May 2003.  On 6 August
2003, 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 submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander reviewed the
proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action
with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 21 August
2003, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and
directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of
service of under other than honorable conditions and that he be reduced to
the lowest enlisted grade.

      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,
documents, and the issues 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.  Furthermore,
the analyst noted the applicant's issue and determined that 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.  Additionally, the Board does not grant relief solely for the
purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.
Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service
remains both proper and equitable.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing:                  Date: 3 October 2007
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 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: Eric S. Moore, 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: 11 October 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder