Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/03/05	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 149 submitted by the Applicant, in lieu of DD Form 293 and 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: Not dated
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 010720   Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: 259th Field Service Co, 264th Corps Support Bn, 46th Corps Support Group, 1st Corps Support Command, Ft. Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): The file does not contain any Article 15s, however the highest rank held was PFC and the applicant held the rank of PVT at the time of his request for elimination in lieu of trial by court martial.

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 980707    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 0Mos, 14Days ?????
Total Service:  		3 Yrs, 0Mos, 14Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 57E10 Laundry and Bath   GT: 85   EDU: HS Letter   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  San Antonil, TX
Post Service Accomplishments: Nothing provided by the Applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 15 August 2001, the applicant was charged with (wrongful use of marijuana, on or about 010101 and 010416; larceny of property of some value, the property of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service on or about 010520).  On 22 June 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 did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 13 July 2001, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 
       
       The record contains a Military Police Report dated 010521.

       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 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 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.  Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. Therefore, 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. 
            Also, the analyst noted an error on the DD Form 214 that shows a Separation Code of KFS (i.e., for the good of the Service - In Lieu of Court-Martial) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3." The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is In Lieu of Court-Martial and the separation code is "KFS", and the reentry code is "RE 4".  The analyst recommends to the board to correct the adminstravtive error and change the reentry eligibility (RE) code to "RE 4".  

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 091125         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 noted that the government introduced the results of a command directed urinalysis into the discharge process.  This is limited use information as defined in Chapter 6, AR 600-85.  Use of this information mandates award of a fully honorable discharge.  Accordingly, the Board voted to change the characterization of service to fully honorable.  However, the board found that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and voted not to change it.  Notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3.".  In view of the error, the Board directed that an administrative change be made to block 27, and the reentry code be changed to "RE 4". Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's RE code, the Board determined that the reason for separation was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.
 
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 5    No change 0
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 AR20090004187
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages