Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/01/11	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: 971029
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 971121   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: A Btry, PCF, Personnel and Support Battalion, USAFACFS, Fort Sill, OK 

Time Lost: AWOL x2 for a total of 733 days; AWOL for 225 days from 950813-960327, apprehended; AWOL for 508 days from 960328-970821, surrendered. 

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 950810, at or near Fort Campbell, KY, between on or about 1 February 1995 to on or about 1 March 1995, the applicant wrongfully used marijuana; reduction to specialist (E-4), extra duty for 45 days, forfeiture of 1/2 months pay per month for two months, suspended for 60 days (FG).

950818, suspended punishment imposed on 10 August 1995 vacated due to new misconduct; on or between 12 August 1995 through 13 August 1995, the applicant failed to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty. 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 930218    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 08Mos, 12Days ?????
Total Service:  		07 Yrs, 00Mos, 12Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USN 890808-920624/HD
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 57E10/Laundry and Bath Specialist   GT: 90   EDU: HS GRAD   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Kuwait
Decorations/Awards: NUC, NDSM, KLM (SA), SWASM W/3BSS, ASR, SSDR, NCOPDR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant submitted documents which indicate that he is an ordained minister.








VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 25 August 1997, the applicant was charged with AWOL (950813-960327) and (960328-970821). On 26 August 1997, 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 applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 5 November 1997, 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 all 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.  Further, the analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  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.    In view of the foregoing the analyst determined that the characterization of service and reason for discharge 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: 21 October 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: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090002429
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages