Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/08/27	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The Applicant states that court-martial charges were never filed against him and that he did not receive a court martial. 

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: Not In File (NIF)
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070824   Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial By Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: A Co, 96th Avn Spt Bn, Fort Campbell, KY 

Time Lost: None

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:  40
Current ENL Date: 060325    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 05Mos, 00Days ?????
Total Service:  		09 Yrs, 03Mos, 01Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 040220-060324/HD
                                       RA 870303-890208/GD
                                       RA 830726-860523/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F10/Petro Supply Spc   GT: 110   EDU: GED   Overseas: Germany   Combat: Iraq (dates NIF)
Decorations/Awards: AAM-2, GCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Raeford, NC
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

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) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "4."   The record does contain a memorandum dated 16 August 2007, in which the separation authority approves the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

       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 entire 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 his 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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, the narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives.  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"  with a corresponding reentry code of 4.  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.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the discharge was both, proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 3 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 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 AR20080014704
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages