Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/02/24	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See 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: 070516   Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: F Co, 1-50th INF, USAITB, Ft Benning, GA 

Time Lost: AWOL (070105-070219), 46 days, mode of return, apprehended

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 060918    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  18 weeks
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 06Mos, 14Days Includes 83 days of excess leave (070223-070516)
Total Service:  		00 Yrs, 06Mos, 14Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E1		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Colton, CA
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to the discharge from the Army.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with being AWOL (070105-070219).  The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu trial by court-martial with an uncharacterized discharge.  Furthermore, the DD Form 214 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 "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 and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army.  The analyst noted that the applicant’s record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, which was not authenticated by the applicant.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  Procedurally, the applicant was required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily, and in writing, request 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.  In the absence of information to the contrary, the analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.   The analyst noted that the applicant was in an entry-level status at the time of his request for discharge under the provision of Chapter 10, AR 635-200.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides in pertinent part, that a Soldier is in entry-level status for the first 180 days of continuous active duty.  The purpose of the entry-level status is to provide the Soldier a probationary period.  Soldiers who are found to lack the necessary motivation, adaptability, self-discipline, ability, or attitude to become productive Soldiers may be expeditiously separated while in entry-level status.  The analyst acknowledges that at the time of discharge the applicant had completed a total of 6 months and 14 days of active military service.  However, barring evidence to the contrary, the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process and determined that the applicant’s separation was initiated while he was still in entry-level status.  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.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 13 November 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.  
        
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 AR20090006423
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages