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 enclosed DD Form 293 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: 000607   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: A Co, 94th EN Combat Bn, APO AE 09173 

Time Lost: AWOL for 7 days (000411-000417), mode of return unknown.  However, this AWOL period is not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29, dates of time lost during this period.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): In a memorandum dated 11 May 1999, the unit commander relates that the applicant received a Field Grade and a Summarized Article 15, however, these documents are not part of the available record.

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  24
Current ENL Date: 990715    Current ENL Term: NIF Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 10Mos, 23Days ?????
Total Service:  		04 Yrs, 03Mos, 00Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-960308-990714/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 51B10 Carpentry/Masonry   GT: 105   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Detroit, MI
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 25 April 2000, the applicant was charged with AWOL (000411-000417),   wrongful use of marijuana (hashish) x 3 (000313), (000310-000312), and (000115-000131), wrongfully making a false official statement x 2 (000229) and (000314).  Also, on 8 May 2000, the applicant was additionally charged with disobeying a lawful command from a CPT x 3 (000422), (000423), and (000424).  The applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial is not part of the available record and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 31 May 2000, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       The applicant's record contains an approved Bar to Reenlistment dated 19 April 2000.
       
       The analyst noted that on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, "Reentry Eligibility (RE) code" reads "3."  However, according to AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD)/Reentry (RE) Codes Cross-Reference Table, requires a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "4." 
       

       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 all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review 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 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 issues 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.  Further, although the applicant alleges that he was a victim of racism during his military service, there is no evidence in his military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention.  Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge.  
       
       Additionally, the analyst found that someone in the separation process erroneously entered on the applicant's  DD Form 214, block 27, "Reentry Eligibility (RE) code" reads "3."  The analyst recommends that block 27, "Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code" be changed to "4."  Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's s reentry eligibility (RE) code the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 3 September 2009         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. 



Further, the Board directs ARBA Support Division-St. Louis to administratively change, block 27, "Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code" to "4." 
        
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: The Board directs ARBA Support Division-St. Louis to administratively change, block 27, "Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code" to "4." 										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080019790
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages