Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/03/09	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 149 and attached documents submitted by the applicant in lieu of DD Form 293.

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: 010227   Chapter: 10      AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: 547th Area Spt Med Co, Fort Lewis, WA 

Time Lost: AWOL x 2 for 19 days (010204-010207), and (010208-010222), mode of return unknown. 

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): the evidence of record indicates that the applicant was reduced from SPC/E-4 to PV2/E-2, however, the reducing document is 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:  19
Current ENL Date: 990224    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 11Mos, 16Days ?????
Total Service:  		05 Yrs, 00Mos, 22Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-960117-990223/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31C10 Single Channel Radio Operator   GT: 109   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, ASR, OSR-2

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Louisiana, MO
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 7 February 2001, the applicant was charged with failure to report (010203), AWOL (010204-010207), disrespectful in language and deportment towards a 1SG (010203), disobeying a lawful order from a 1SG (010203), willfully damage the windshield of a five ton truck by punching it, military property of the United States, the amount of said damages in the excess of $100 (010126), wrongful use of cocaine (001110-001210), wrongful possession of cocaine (001110-001210), wrongful use of marijuana  (001209-010108), and assault upon a SPC (010126).  On 8 February 2001, 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's submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 21 February 2001, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       The analyst noted that on the applicant's DD Form 214 block 27, reentry eligibility (RE) code reads "3," however, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial, which according to AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD)/Reentry (RE) Codes Cross-Reference Table, requires an 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 the independent documentation he submitted; however, the evidence of record shows that the applicant was treated by competent medical authority while in the military and upon release his condition had improved.  Further, the analyst found that while undergoing medical treatment for his mental health issues, the applicant committed various acts of serious misconduct, based on the charges preferred against him under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial and not because of a diagnosis of PTSD.  Also, the applicant's available record does not contain any evidence of inservice diagnosis of PTSD symptoms as indicated in the independent documentation and the applicant did not submit any corroborating evidence of inservice diagnosis of PTSD symptoms or related medical issues.  Additionally, the analyst found that the applicant's report of mental status evaluation indicated that he was mentally responsible for his behavior, was able to distinquish right from wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative and judicial  proceedings, and was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command.  Subsequently, the applicant consulted with  legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of a trial by court-martial.  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.
       
       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 of  "3."  The analyst recommends that block 27 be administratively changed to "4" as approved by the separation approving authority.  Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's reentry eligibility (RE) code, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable.  
        
       
        
       
       
       
       
       
       

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 19 August 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 that the 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 that the 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 AR20090002317
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages