Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/10/15	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents 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: 070209   Chapter: 3-13       AR: 600-8-24
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: DFS   Unit/Location: HHD, 94th MP Bn, APO AP 

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:  24
Current ENL Date: 001222    Current ENL Term: Indef Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	06 Yrs, 01Mos, 18Days ?????
Total Service:  		12 Yrs, 01Mos, 11Days The applicant's DD Form 214 under review does not account for the period of service the applicant had in the USAR-961221-970826 and USARCG-970827-001221.
Previous Discharges: 	USAR-941229-950731/NA
                                       ADT-950801-961220/HD
                                       USAR-961221-970826/NA
                                       USARCG-970827-001221/NA
Highest Grade: O3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31A/Military Police   GT: NA   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia, Korea   Combat: Iraq (040808-041212)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-2, NDSM-2, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Brooklyn Park, MN
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 December 2006, the applicant was charged with intent to deceive by making an official statement (060925); fraternization with an enlisted Soldier x 3 between (060101 and 060228, 060323 and 060701 and 060911 and 060926); and for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with an enlisted Soldier, a woman not his wife between on or about (060401 and 060701).  On 11 December 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily tendered his resignation from the Army in writing, under the provisions of Chapter 3, Paragraph 3-13, AR 600-8-24, for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial or a board of officers.   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.  On 28 December 2006, the Commander, Headquarters, Eight United States Army, APO AP 96205, recommended disapproval of the resignation for the good of the Service.  On 10 January 2007, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed that the applicant be discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army regulation 600-8-24 prescribes the policies and procedures governing the transfer and discharge of Army officer personnel.  Chapter 3, Paragraph 3-13 outlines the rules for processing requests for resignation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial.

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the term of service under review, the issues and documents 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 that the former Soldier was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge.  The applicant voluntarily requested resignation in lieu of trial by general court-martial under the provisions of Chapter 3, Paragraph 3-13, AR 600-8-24.  The appropriate authority approved the applicant's request and issuance of an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.  The analyst concluded that by the misconduct, the applicant diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issues; however, found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  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.  The analyst acknowledges the applicant's many in-service accomplishments outlined with the application and in the documents with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  
       
       Further, the narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives.  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 3, Paragraph 3-13, AR 600-8-24.  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 "DFS."  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.  
       
       Additionally, the record does not support the issue that the applicant suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  
       
       In view of the foregoing the analyst determined that the characterization of service and reason for discharge 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: 1 February 2010         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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080016126
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages