Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070011426aC071121

Application Receipt Date: 070817

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 with eighteen (18) attachments and a binder, with
additional 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: 060125
Discharge Received:     Date: 060215
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: Company D, 1st Battalion, 222nd Aviation Regiment, Fort
Eustis, VA  23604

Time Lost: AWOL, for a total of 133 days from (1 September 2005 to 11
January 2006).  He surrendered to the military authorities at Fort Eustis,
VA, and was transferred to Fort Knox, KY  40121.

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  860420
Current ENL Date: 050510    Current ENL Term: 6 Years       
Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 4 Mos, 25 Days The applicant was placed on
excess leave for a total of 26 days from (060121-060215).
Total Service:  0 Yrs, 4 Mos, 25 Days      
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E1
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No
MOS: None   GT: 115   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record:
Current Address:
Post Service Accomplishments: See DD Form 293 with attachments.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on19 January 2006, the applicant was
charged with AWOL from (1 September 2005 until 12 January 2006).  On 19
January 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 30 January 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 a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, issue
and the supporting documents he submitted, the analyst found several
mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the characterization of
service to uncharacterized, and the narrative reason for separation to
Secretarial Authority.  This recommendation was made after full
consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as his record
of misconduct.  The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the
applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it
is inequitable.  The analyst found that the circimstances surrounding the
AWOL, and the supporting documentation substantiating the applicant's
reason for going AWOL mitigated the discrediting entry in his service
record.



























































VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing:                  Date: 12 September 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 5    No change 0   - Character
                                   Change 5    No change 0   - 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
characterization of service was too harsh and as a result, it is
inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief by changing the
characterization of service to uncharacterized and the narrative reason for
separation to Secretarial Authority  This action entails a change to the
reentry eligibiltiy (RE) code to "1."





















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: Secretarial Authority under Chapter 5, AR 635-200.
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: 14 September 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder

Similar Decisions

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070011426

    Original file (AR20070011426.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 060125 Discharge Received: Date: 060215 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Company D, 1st Battalion, 222nd Aviation Regiment, Fort Eustis, VA 23604 Time Lost: AWOL, for a total of 133 days from (1 September 2005 to 11 January 2006). Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E1 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 115 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070012951

    Original file (AR20070012951.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 2 May 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for AWOL x 2 (051006-051103 and 051104-060215), with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090006459

    Original file (AR20090006459.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade:...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013366

    Original file (AR20060013366.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 28 June 2006, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 21 June 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S....

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070009971

    Original file (AR20070009971.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 16 February 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense for being convicted in a Summary Court-Martial (060215) for wrongful use of cocaine, and receiving a Field Grade Article 15 (051215) for wrongful use of methamhetamines and ecstacy, with a general, under honorable...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007528

    Original file (AR20090007528.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 15 February 2006, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080004310

    Original file (AR20080004310.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge should be changed because he had made a mistake in going AWOL and leaving his unit. 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090013131

    Original file (AR20090013131.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060017302

    Original file (AR20060017302.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 05 Mos, 28 Days ????? The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 15 October 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013363

    Original file (AR20070013363.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 May 2006, the Applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. On 10 August 2006, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed that the Applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. While the Applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst noted that the overall length and quality of the Applicant's...