Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080012894
Original file (AR20080012894.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/08/13	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: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 061212   Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: HHT, 3-61st Cav Regmt (Rear) (Provisional), Fort Carson, CO 

Time Lost: AWOL x 2  for 169 days (051101-060317) and (060701-060802), mode of return unknown; confinement civil authorities for 129 days (060803-061212).  Total time lost 290 days. 

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:  19
Current ENL Date: 050421    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  18 Weeks/with an approved medical waiver (050401)
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 09Mos, 23Days ?????
Total Service:  		00 Yrs, 09Mos, 23Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19D10 Cavalry Scout   GT: 97   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Colorado Springs, CO
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 29 June 2006, the applicant was charged with AWOL from (051101-060317).  On 31 October 2006, 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 the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The intermediate and senior intermediate commanders recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 22 November 2006, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.
       The applicant's record contains a CID Report of Investigation dated 7 August 2006.

       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, the issues and documents he 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; however, did not find said issue sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge 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: 22 May 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: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080012894
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080019860

    Original file (AR20080019860.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. 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: None ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060007017

    Original file (AR20060007017.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The unit commander and intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a under other than honorable conditions discharge. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant's available military records, and the issue he submited, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would warrant an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. ...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080001234

    Original file (AR20080001234.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070016829

    Original file (AR20070016829.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090016699

    Original file (AR20090016699.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? He thanks the board for considering his request. Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form 214 for the period of service ending 5 October 2006, and three character reference letters in support of his records review.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080005127

    Original file (AR20080005127.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. 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: None ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007512

    Original file (AR20090007512.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The applicant's chain of command's recommendation for approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge is not contained in the available record and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090008155

    Original file (AR20090008155.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011587

    Original file (AR20060011587.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. 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 | CY2008 | AR20080016170

    Original file (AR20080016170.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...