Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 071220	

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: 020917   
Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial
RE:     SPD: KFS
Unit/Location: HHD, 1-3 SFG, Fort Carson, CO 80913 

Time Lost: None

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Year/Month:  6402  
HOR City, State: East Cleveland, OH
Current ENL Date: 000121    Current ENL Term: Indef Years  Extension of service was at the request and for the convenience of the Government.
Current ENL Service: 02  Yrs, 07 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Total Service:  14  Yrs, 10 Mos, 06 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA-870922-910313/HD
                                      RA-910314-940830/HD
                                      RA-940831-000120/HD
Highest Grade: E-7
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92Y10 Supply Specialist   GT: 99   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea/Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-4, AAM-3, AGCM-4, NDSM-2, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-3

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

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 his 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 authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service-in lieu 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 17 September 2002,  DA, HQ, 7th Infantry Division and Fort Carson, Fort Carson, CO, Orders 260-0013, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective date:  17 September 2002.   

      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 under review, 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 specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his 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 authenticated by the applicant.  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 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.  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: 18 August 2008              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: No

Witnesses/Observers: No 

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted three additional pages of documents in support of his personal appearance hearing.




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 3    No change 2   - 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, hearing his testimony and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service is too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable cnditions.  However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  This action entails a restoration of grade to SFC/E-7.   
















 

								        
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: SFC/E-7

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 AR20070018781
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 6 pages