Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013564
Original file (AR20070013564.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name: 

Application Receipt Date: 070928	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 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: 070725   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: HQs, 82nd ABN Div, Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: AWOL, for 2974 days (981216-070208), apprehended.  Total time lost 2974 days.

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Year/Month:  7003  
HOR City, State: Ventura, CA
Current ENL Date: 980505    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  with a moral waiver
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 00Mos, 29Days ?????
Total Service:  01 Yrs, 00Mos, 29Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-2
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B1P/Infantryman   GT: NIF   EDU: GEd Certif   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: GWOTSM, 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 2 April 2007, the applicant was charged with being AWOL (981216-070208).  On 16 April 2007, 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.  On 20 April 2007, the acting Staff Judge Advocate indicated in his memorandum that the applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  On 20 April 2007, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request 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, and the issue 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 found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  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.  Therefore, 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: 5 September 2008              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: None




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.  

								        
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: ?????

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority:

EDGER J. YANGER
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 5 September 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070013564
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080003808

    Original file (AR20080003808.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 30 July 2007, the applicant was charged with being AWOL (070309 to 090720), failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on diverse occasions between (070223 and 070306), wrongful use of cocaine between (070205 and 070208), and wrongful use of marijuana between (070109...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015821

    Original file (AR20060015821.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011575

    Original file (AR20060011575.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293. The separation authorities documentation approving the separation action and directing that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is not part of the available records, and the analyst presumed Government Regularity in the discharge process. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070010410

    Original file (AR20070010410.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. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060008501

    Original file (AR20060008501.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090010444

    Original file (AR20090010444.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 9 May 2009, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: SPC/E-4 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060014774

    Original file (AR20060014774.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD293 submitted by the applicant. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090004645

    Original file (AR20090004645.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. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060010487

    Original file (AR20060010487.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application Receipt Date: 060728 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 00Mos, 17Days ????? 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 | CY2006 | AR20060009751

    Original file (AR20060009751.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 00Mos, 26Days ????? 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. 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...