Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 070906	

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: 051106   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: C Co, 2-81 AR, Fort Knox, KY 40121 

Time Lost: AWOL for 2,258 days (991128-051023), surrendered.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Year/Month:  8104  
HOR City, State: Pathfork, KY
Current ENL Date: 990909    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 00  Yrs, 03 Mos, 12 Days ?????
Total Service:  00  Yrs, 03 Mos, 12 Days Includes 19 days of excess leave (051029-051116).
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant claims he graduated from college and teaches high school science.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS (i.e.,for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial), with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "4."  The evidence of record shows that on 15 November 2005, DA, HQ, U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, Fort Knox, KY, Orders 319-0157, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective date:  16 November 2005.  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 available military records during the period of enlistment, the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The applicant’s record is void of the facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army.  However, the applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant' signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  Procedurally, the applicant was required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily, and in writing, request 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.  In the absence of information to the contrary, the analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  It also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant would have been aware of that prior to requesting discharge.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue and 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, 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.  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: 20 August 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: 	       	Proper	 	Improper	
						Equitable	 	Inequitable	

DRB voting record:  		      Change 2    No change 3   - 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: 26 August 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070012357
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 6 pages