Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/11/19	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached document 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: 	NIFDate: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 071229   Chapter: 10      AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: A Co, 302nd BSB, APO AP 96224 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): The applicant mentions that he received a Field Grade Article 15 on his DD Form 293, however, the document is not part of the available record.

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  25
Current ENL Date: 060106    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  22 Weeks/with an approved moral waiver (051205)
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 11Mos, 24Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 11Mos, 24Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F10 Petroleum Supply Spec   GT: 102   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM. ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Quinton, AL
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 30 November 2007, the applicant was charged with failure to report x 5 (061211), (070203), (070622), (070902), and (071115); disobeyed a lawful command from a CPT (071027); violated curfew (061210); wrongful possession of a pair of brass knuckles (070320); assaulted a PV2 (070320); drunk and disorderly, which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces x 2 (070320) and (071027); broke restriction x 3 (070901), (070903) and (071124).  On 14 December 2007, 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander's documentation recommending approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge is not part of the available record and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  On 19 December 2007, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than 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 all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and document he 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 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; however, even though the applicant claims that his offense was isolated, the analyst concluded that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct, expected of Soldiers in the Army.  Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  Further, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “4.”  An RE code of “4” cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment.    In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the the characterization of service, reason for discharge and the  reentry eligibility (RE) code 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: 23 April 2009         Location: Atlanta, GA

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: No

Witnesses/Observers: No 

Exhibits Submitted: No

VIII.  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 considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service is too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The Board determined that the length of the applicant's service, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge and the reentry eligibility (RE) code was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  


        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 4    No change 1
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: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080019854
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages