Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 080626	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documentation 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: 020114
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 020207   Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: F Co, 369 Sig Bn, Ft Gordon, GA 

Time Lost: AWOL 36 days (010528-010702), surrendered.

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:  20
Current ENL Date: 000920    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 03 Mos, 12 Days includes 211 days of excess leave (010712-020207)
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 03 Mos, 12 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31U    GT: NIF   EDU: HS GED   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  San Antonio, TX
Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant states, "since 2001 I have done great things with my life…." but did not further elaborate or provide supporting documentation.  

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
The evidence of record shows that on 11 July 2001, the Applicant was charged with absenting himself from his organization from on or about 010528 until on or about 010703.  On 11 July 2001, 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 25 January 2002, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  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 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.  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.  Furthermore, 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, a Soldier is in entry-level status (ELS) for the first 180 days of continuous active duty.  The purpose of the entry-level status is to provide the Soldier a probationary period.  Army Regulation 635-200 also provides, except in cases of serious misconduct, that a Soldier’s service will be uncharacterized when the separation is initiated while the Soldier is in entry level status.  The Applicant’s separation was initiated after his first 180 days of continuous active duty and, therefore, was no longer in entry-level status.  Therefore, the analyst determined 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 March 2009         Location: Dallas, TX

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: No

Witnesses/Observers: No 

Exhibits Submitted: No

VIII.  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 was too harsh based on the Applicant’s post service accomlishments, specifically his employment record, and the circumstances surrounding his misconduct in that the alleged assault on his fiance, perpetrated by someone other than the Applicant, contributed to his going AWOL and that the Applicant surrendered to military authorities soon thereafter and, as a result, it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief by changing the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.



 
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 3    No change 2
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: No Change
Other: None										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080010832
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages