Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/03/30	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: 990812
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 000517   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: A Trp, 1/10th Cav, Fort Hood, TX 

Time Lost: AWOL x 1 for 139 days (980922-990207), surrendered.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF, however, the Characterization of Service Checklist for Administrative Discharge Actions memo, makes reference to the applicant having received 1 Article 15.  A Copy of the Article 15 was not found in the available records.

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 971021    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 02Mos, 08Days Includes 462 days of excess leave (990211-000517).
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 02Mos, 08Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19K10/M1 Armor Crewman   GT: 88   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Luverne, AL
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that he has attended different training programs to further his education and has become a more stable man.  Many of the training programs included AIDT Training for industry, automotive mechanics at Douglas MaCarthur Tech, and he is currently attending LBW CC through the Adult Education Program.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 10 February 1999, the applicant was charged with AWOL (980922-990208).  On 10 February 1999, 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 recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 1 September 1999, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.
       
       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 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the documents, 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 of age and desire to reenlist in the ARNG.  However, 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.
       
       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 corrected to "4" as approved by the separation approving authority.  An RE code of “4” cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment.
       
       Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's reentry eligibility (RE) code, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge, characterization of service to include the reentry eligibility (RE) code were both proper and equitable.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 19 April 2010         Location: Atlanta, GA

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: [redacted] 

Exhibits Submitted: Self- authored statement, two letters of support, DD Form 214, and discharge order.



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 discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted to deny relief.

Further, the Board directs ARBA Support Division-St. Louis to administratively correct, 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: NA
Other: The Board directs ARBA Support Division-St. Louis to administratively correct, block 27, "Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code" to "4." 										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090007324
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages