Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 070725	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the 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: NIF
Discharge Received:     Date: 040322   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: D Co, 187th Med Bn, Fort Sam Houston, TX 

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
Year/Month:  8205  
HOR City, State: The Colony, TX
Current ENL Date: 000105    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  The applicant extended for 20 months (020821).
Current ENL Service: 04  Yrs, 02 Mos, 18 Days ?????
Total Service:  04  Yrs, 02 Mos, 18 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-5
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 91W20 Health Care Spec   GT: 125   EDU: 12 Years   Overseas: Hawaii   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, NCOPDR, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
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 January 2004, the applicant was charged with wrongful use of marijuana between on or about (030803-030902).  On 17 March 2004, 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 she understood that she 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 her own behalf.  The unit commander's recommendation for acceptance of the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial with a general, under honorable conditions discharge is not part of the available record and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  The intermediate and senior commanders recommended acceptance of the applicant's request for dicharge in lieu of trial by court-martial with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 18 March 2004, the separation authority approved the discharge with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
      

      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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents she 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; however, 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.  Additionally, the analyst noted the letters of recommendation submitted by the applicant, which attests to her military decorum.  However, this evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.  In view of the foregoing, 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: 2 July 2008              
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 1    No change 4   - 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.  























								        
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: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 11 July 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070010431
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages