Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 07/11/16	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 submitted by the applicant.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 030409
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 030923   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: 82nd Medical Company (Air Ambulance), 937th Engineer Group Rear (Provisional), Fort Riley, KS 66442-5000. 

Time Lost: AWOL x 1, for 482 days from (010424-020820). He was apprehended by the civilian authorities and transferred to Fort Riley, KS 66442-5000.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF-See the applicant's facts and circumstances.

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  30
Current ENL Date: Reenl/000107    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 4 Mos, 19 Days ?????
Total Service:  		4 Yrs, 7 Mos, 25 Days The DD Form 214 item 12c shows the net active service this period as: 4 years, 7 months, 18 days, which is incorrect.
Previous Discharges: 	RA 971002-000106/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92G10 Food Service Spec   GT: 109   EDU: GED Certif   Overseas:  Southwest Asia   Combat: Arifjan, Kuwait/The charge sheet (DD Form 458) indicates the applicant was there around May 2003.
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, C/Ach

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 20 August 2003, the applicant was charged with wrongfully using marijuana x 2, between on or about (030106-030206), and between on or about (030611-030711), disrespectful in language and deportment toward a 1SG and a SFC (030526), and willfully disobeying a lawful command from a Major (030526).  On 4 September 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 not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 10 September 2003, 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.  
       
       The evidence of record further shows that the applicant reenlisted at the pay grade/rank as an E-4; however, at the time of his request for discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, the record indicated that he was an E-2. The record is void of any non-judicial punishment that was administered to the applicant. DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) dated 14 July 2003, indicates that the chain of command was going to initiate UCMJ action against the applicant after returning from Iraq, due to a positive urinalysis taken from the company 100% testing on 6 February 2003. On 11 July 2003, the applicant tested positive again for marijuana and was pending UCMJ action, see DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) dated 11 August 2003.

       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 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, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  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: 24 September 2008         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA

VIII.  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. 
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 1    No change 4
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
Issue a new DD Form 214  					         Colonel, U.S. Army
Change Characterization to: 			         President, Army Discharge Review Board 
Change Reason to:  
Other: NA										
RE Code: 									 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070016575
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages