Applicant Name: ?????
Application Receipt Date: 2008/08/18 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA
I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change
Issues: The applicant submitted no issues of equity or propriety to be considered by the Board.
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: 060523 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: B Co, BSTB, 4/10th MTN (L), Fort Polk, LA
Time Lost: None
Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Counseling Records Available: Yes No
IV. Soldiers Overall Record
Age at current enlistment: 21
Current ENL Date: 030916 Current ENL Term: 05 Years ?????
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 08Mos, 08Days ?????
Total Service: 02 Yrs, 08Mos, 08Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No
MOS: 97E10/Humint Collector GT: 117 EDU: 2 Yrs Coll Overseas: None Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM
V. Post-Discharge Activity
City, State: Tallahassee, FL
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed
VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation
a. Facts and Circumstances:
The evidence of record shows that on 11 May 2006, the applicant was charged with failing to go to his appointed place of duty (060217), disobeying a lawful order from a warrant officer (060216), disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (060225), assault X 2 (060216 and 060216), assaulting another Soldier (060329), and communicating a threat to another Soldier (060329). On 12 May 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 veterans benefits. The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The applicant's chain of command's recommendations are not contained in the available record and the analyst presumed Government Regularity in the discharge process. On 17 May 2006, 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 individuals 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 applicants military records during the period of enlistment under review, 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. 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 applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts 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 AR20080013331
______________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 3 pages
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080005972
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 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:...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080003840
Applicant Name: ????? Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts 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: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090010163
Applicant Name: ????? On 29 December 2006, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 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 | CY2006 | AR20060008905
Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 submitted by the applicant. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Yes No Counsel: Witnesses/Observers: Exhibits Submitted: VIII.
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090000357
Applicant Name: ????? On 9 February 2001, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 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 | AR20080005079
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 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:...
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070014384
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. 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 Issue a new...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080002781
Applicant Name: ????? I believe my military records and service will show that I deserve the upgrade. 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 AR20080002781 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070015142
The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 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. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason -...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080013743
Applicant Name: ????? Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicants issue and determined that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.