Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 080710	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See attached 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: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 940809   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: B Btry, 1-17 FA Bn, Ft. Sill, OK 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 931210, Wrongful use of marijuana between 931024 and 931122; Reduction to E1, 45 days extra duty (CG/FG NIF).

Applicant's Service Record indicates the Applicant was reduced in rank from E5 to E4 on 901005, from E4 to E3 on 930406, and from E4 to E1 on 931216.

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 901126, General Court-Martial Order #78, Record of evidence indicates the Applicant was charged with 2 counts of murder by an inherently dangerous act on 1 July 1990, was found not guilty but was found guilty of 2 counts of Article 134; Forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month for six months, reduction to E4 and reprimanded for driving while intoxicated which resulted in the deaths of two children.

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 890911    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  Applicant's DD 214 states the extension of service was at the request and for the convenience of the government.
Current ENL Service: 	04 Yrs, 10 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Total Service:  		08 Yrs, 00 Mos, 04 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA - 860806-890910/HD
Highest Grade: E5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B  Cannon Crewmember   GT: 89   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany, Saudi Arabia   Combat: Kuwait (dates NIF)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM (2), AGCM, NDSM, SSM w/2 Service Stars, NCOPDR, OSR (2), KLM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Columbus, GA
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed by the Applicant.






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 the 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 court-martial).

       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 Applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army.  The analyst noted that the Applicant’s record contains 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.  The analyst noted the Applicant's issue, however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Additionally, the analyst noted that the Applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the Applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  Therefore, 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 April 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: No Change
Other: No Change										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080011039
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages