Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 080917	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed 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: 070302
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070411   Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: 2d Bde Cbt Tm (Fwd)(Prov), Fort Carson, Colorado 

Time Lost: AWOL 137 days (060926-070213), returned to military control when staff duty officer picked up the Applicant at a civilian hospital.

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: 040518    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  and 17 weeks
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 06 Mos, 06 Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 06 Mos, 06 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19K  Armor Crewman   GT: 97   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq (050308-060219)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR, OSR, CAB

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Pittsburgh, PA
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the Applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
The evidence of record shows that on 2 March 2007, the Applicant was charged with being AWOL (26 September 2006-13 February 2007).  On 22 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.  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 and intermediate commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 22 March 2007, 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 available military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents submitted with the application, the analyst recommends that the Applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  This recommendation was made after full consideration of the former Soldier’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct.  The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the Applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  While the Applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst noted that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include the combat service, and the supporting medical documents, mitigated the discrediting entries in the service record.  Furthermore, the Applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial", and the separation code is "KFS"  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.   Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the Applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable.  This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 19 June 2009         Location: Washington, D.C.

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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service to include his combat service and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4. 







 
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 4    No change 1
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: Restoration of grade to Specialist/E-4.
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080014666
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages