Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080011561
Original file (AR20080011561.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/07/23	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: 010613
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 010814   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: Battery A, 13th Field Artillery, Fort Stewart, GA  

Time Lost: AWOL x 1 for 79 days (000211-000429). Surrendered to the military authorities at Fort Knox, KY 40121

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: 990818    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 9 Mos, 8 Days Includes 467 days of excess leave from (000505-010814)
Total Service:  		1 Yrs, 9 Mos, 8 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13M10 Multiple Launch Rocket System Crewmember   GT: 97   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

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 4 May 2000, the applicant was charged with AWOL from (000211-000430).  On 4 May 2000, 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 commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 16 July 2001, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  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 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 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 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.  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.  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: 23 April 2009         Location: Atlanta, GA

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 AR20080011561
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090012008

    Original file (AR20090012008.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: Applicant states his medical condition precluded his return to duty and that he went AWOL due to his medical condition. 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110001023

    Original file (AR20110001023.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Furthermore, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the analyst found that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, re-entry code as “3.” In...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100018827

    Original file (AR20100018827.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 010227 Discharge Received: Date: 010404 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 35th Infantry, Schofield Barracks, HI Time Lost: AWOL x 1 from (000211-000926) for 259 days. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060014129

    Original file (AR20060014129.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 100 EDU: 10 yrs Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. The commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a under other than honorable conditions discharge. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090006390

    Original file (AR20090006390.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 11 July 2005, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080005147

    Original file (AR20080005147.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070016415

    Original file (AR20070016415.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 19 March 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. 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070014392l

    Original file (AR20070014392l.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090012254

    Original file (AR20090012254.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's DD Form 214, which he refused to sign, indicates he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 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. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007506

    Original file (AR20090007506.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. 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...