Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/05/12	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant 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?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 070521
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070525   Chapter: 10      AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: B Co, 3/81st AR Bn, 1st ATB, Fort Knox, KY 

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:  23
Current ENL Date: 030916    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  With a misdemeanor waiver.
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 08Mos, 10Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 08Mos, 10Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19D10/Cavalry Scout   GT: 129   EDU: BA   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (050202-060118)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM, ASR, OSR, CAB

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that since leaving the military he has maintained a sober lifestyle, has maintained employment and returned to college.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The applicant's record is void of the DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), however, the applicant's Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial shows that he was charged with 3 Specification of Article134 (General Article) and 2 Specifications of Article 80 and 92 (Attempts and Failure to Obey Order or Regulation).  On 15 May 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 a general, under 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 recommendations are not part of the available records, however, the Staff Judge Advocates memorandum dated 21 May 2007, for the Commander, US Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, Fort Knox, KY, states that the applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the applicant's request.  On 21 May 2007, the separation authority approved the discharge with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       Standard Form 600's "Health Record, Chronological Record of Medical Care" found in the applicant's available records make reference to the applicant having received treatment for Chronic Post Tranumatic Stress Disorder on numerous occasions.
       
       The applicant's record contains a General Officer's Reprimand dated 27 April 2007, for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

       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 during the period of enlistment under review and the issues 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 issues; however, even though the applicant claims that his offense was isolated, the analyst concluded that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct, expected of Soldiers in the Army.  Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Further, the analyst found that the record does support the applicant's issue that he was treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by the Ireland ACH-Fort Knox treatment facility prior to his separation.  The record further shows that he was released without limitations, was advised to follow up in 4 weeks in the Psychiatric Clinic or sooner if there are problems, and was advised to go to the VA for follow up.  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: 13 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, 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 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: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080010582
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages