Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/11/21	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: 950411
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 950616   Chapter: 5       AR: 635-120
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: DFS   Unit/Location: DCS For OPNS and PLANS, Fort Myer, VA 

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:  27
Current ENL Date: 820324/OAD    Current ENL Term: Indef Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	13 Yrs, 02Mos, 23Days ?????
Total Service:  		17 Yrs, 08Mos, 05Days Block 12d "Total Prior Active Service" of the DD Form 214 under review does not account for the 02 months and 09 days the applicant served on active duty (710730-711008). 
Previous Discharges: 	RA-710730-711008/HD
                                       USAR-ROTC-771221-820323/NA
Highest Grade: 04		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 14A/ADA General   GT: NA   EDU: BA   Overseas: Germany, South Africa   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: MSM, ARCOM-3, AAM, NDSM-2, AFRM, ASR, OSR-2, 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Accokeek, MD
Post Service Accomplishments: See DD Form 293 and attached documents.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that on 14 December 1994, the applicant was charged with attempting to steal on or about (940308) $2804.00; with the intent to deceive by signing a official document X 5 (911016, 920728, 930416, 931101, and 940209); stealing US Currency X 3 ($2803.00, $1996.00, and $399.00); and making a false claim for personel property against the US X 5 (911016/$603.69, 921211/$6614.99, 930429/$2495.00, 940217/$3377.52, and 940308/$5915.00).  On 4 April 1995, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily tendered his resignation from the service and requested in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter 5, AR 635-120, 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.  The chain of command recommended approval of the resignation for the good of the service with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The Commander, Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, DC, recommended approval of the applicant's resignation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by a general court-martial with issuance of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 20 April 1995, the Ad Hoc Review Board recommended that the applicant’s resignation be accepted with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 16 October 1995, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards/EEO Complaints) 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 635-120, in effect at the time, prescribed the procedures for the resignation of Army commission officers on active duty.  Chapter 5 allowed for an officer to submit a resignation for the good of the Service (RFGOS) in lieu of court-martial.  An officer separated under this paragraph normally receives characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions or under other than honorable conditions.

       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 documents, and the issues he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant 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 5, AR 635-120.  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 his misconduct, the applicant diminished the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Furthermore, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many 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 analyst noted the applicant's issue that his discharge was inequitable and excessive in light of discharges other service members in like circumstances received, however, the method in which another Soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case.  Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case.  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: 18 May 2009         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: Yes

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted 49 pages of additional documents in support of his hearing.

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the term of service under review, hearing his testimony 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 1    No change 4
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 AR20080019453
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages