Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080017248
Original file (AR20080017248.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 081028	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See 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: 080612
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080730   Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: C Co, 1st Bn, 507th PIR, Ft. Benning, GA 

Time Lost: AWOL 88 days (080117-080415); surrendered to military authorities.

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: 070909    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 07 Mos, 30 Days Excess leave 104 days (080418-080730)
Total Service:  		00 Yrs, 07 Mos, 30 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Rio Piedras, PR
Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant states he is enrolled in college and has earned 17 credits in 3 months.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 17 April 2008, the Applicant was charged with being AWOL (080117-080415).  On 18 April 2008, 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.  On 30 June 2008, 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.
       

       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 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 evidence of record indicates that 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 and determined that the Applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.  Therefore, the analyst determined 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: 12 August 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: No Change
Other: No Change										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080017248
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 2 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090006683

    Original file (AR20090006683.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. Furthermore, the analyst noted that the applicant did not submitted any issues of equity or propriety to be considered by the Board and the Army Discharge Review Board has not otherwise relied upon an issue of equity or propriety to change the discharge.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110019020

    Original file (AR20110019020.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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 submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. Certification Signature Approval Authority: EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board BONITA E. TROTMAN Lieutenant...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013359

    Original file (AR20070013359.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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 | CY2009 | AR20090008242

    Original file (AR20090008242.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 15 September 2008, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080014060

    Original file (AR20080014060.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, hearing his testimony and...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120000105

    Original file (AR20120000105.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he made a critical mistake and requests an upgrade of his discharge to a general, under honorable conditions in order to reenlist and correct his mistake. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090009940

    Original file (AR20090009940.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 15 May 2008, 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 | CY2008 | AR20080011959

    Original file (AR20080011959.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 5 August 1999, 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 | CY2010 | AR20100022452

    Original file (AR20100022452.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. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and the applicant was aware of it prior to requesting discharge.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090019638

    Original file (AR20090019638.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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.