Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/05/14	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: 070425
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070504   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: HQ & HQ Company, Special Activities, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 

Time Lost: None

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  29
Current ENL Date: Reenl/050816    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 8 Mos, 19 Days ?????
Total Service:  		10 Yrs, 8 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 960807-990826/HD
                                       RA 990827-020905/HD
                                       RA 020906-040310/HD
                                       RA 040311-050815/HD
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 63J10 Quartermaster & Chemical Equip Rep   GT: 123   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Prior Svc/Korea (011029-020426)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM (5), AAM (4), GCMDL (3), NDSM, HSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR

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 8 March 2007, the applicant was charged with falsely procuring himself to be enlisted as a Specialist in the US Army, and received pay and allowances under the enlistment (050816); assaulted a SPC (061122); pushed and threw a female individual (0611220); wrongfully communicated a threat to a SPC (061122); wrongfully communicated a threat to a female individual (061122); and unlawfully entered the dwelling house of a female individual (060301).  On 9 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.  The unit and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 1 May 2007, the separation authority approved the discharge and directed issuance of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       The record contains an Investigatiing Officers Report (Article 32) dated 6 April 2007. 
       

       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 submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The evidence of record indicates that 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 that his discharge was based on an isolated incident; however, even though a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Further, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “4.”  An RE code of “4” cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment.  
       
       Additionally, the evidence of record shows that the applicant was in the Rank/Pay Grade of SGT/E-5 at the time the separation approving authority directed his separation.  However, the separation Orders and the DD Form 214 shows the applicant in the Rank/Pay Grade of PVT/E-1.  Further the record contains no evidence that the applicant was reduced prior to his separation from the service.  In view of the aforementioned, the analyst recommends to the Board that an administrative correction be made to the DD Form 214, block 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade) to reflect the applicant's Rank/Pay Grade at the time of separation as: SGT/E-5.  Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's DD Form 214, block 4a and 4b, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge, to include the reentry eligibility (RE) code and the characterization of service was both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.   
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 4 March 2009         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, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and block 4b (Pay Grade) "PV1/E01."  In view of the error, the Board directed that an administrative change be made to block 4a and block 4b to reflect the applicant's (Grade, Rate or Rank) and (Pay Grade) at the time of separation as: "SGT/E05," which was approved by the separation authority.  Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 4a and 4b, the Board determined that the reason for discharge, to include the reentry eligibility (RE) code and the characterization of service was both proper and equitable and and voted not to change it.   
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
X.  Board Action Directed					         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: NA
Other: Change block 4a and block 4b to reflect the applicant's (Grade, Rate or Rank) and (Pay Grade) at the time of separation as: SGT/E05, 										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: SGT/E05
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080007953
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 3 pages