Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/04/11	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 and attached statement 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: 040611
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040708   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: A Company, 1st Battalion, 64th Armor Regiment, Fort Stewart, GA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040124, Wrongfully used cocaine between on or about 031213 and on or about 031217; reduction to Private (E-1); forfeiture of $575.00 pay per month for 2 months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  22
Current ENL Date: 011023    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 8 Mos, 16 Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 8 Mos, 16 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19K10 M1 Armor Crewman   GT: 107   EDU: GED Cert   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (020920-030810)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, AFEM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant stated in his issue that "he has enrolled for general studies classes at Enterprise/Ozark Community College, with the ultimate goal of pursuing a Bachelor Degree in Computer Networking."

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 11 May 2004, the applicant was charged with wrongfully and recklessly engage in conduct, by handling a 9mm pistol while under the influence of alcohol, and that the conduct was likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to three individuals and himself on or about (040125).  On 17 June 2004, 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 23 June 2004, 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 record contains a Miscellaneous Incident Report dated 25 January 2004.

       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 issues; however, there was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  The analyst concluded that the discrediting entries in the applicant's record were not outweighed by prior or subsequent service of sufficient merit to warrant an upgrade of the discharge being reviewed.  Further, 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.  Additionally, the analyst acknowledges the applicant’s letter with his application outlining his successful accomplishments since separation from active duty.  The applicant is to be commended for his efforts.  However, these accomplishments do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.   
       
       Finally, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the analyst found that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 4,a; Grade, Rate, or Rank "SPC," and block 4, b; Pay Grade "E4."  In view of this clerical error, the analyst recommends to the Board that block 4,a; Grade, Rate, or Rank "SPC," and block 4, b; Pay Grade "E4" be administratively changed to reflect; block 4,a; Grade, Rate, or Rank "PVT," and block 4, b; Pay Grade "E1" as evident in the record that the applicant was reduced to E1, as part of his punishment from the imposition of a Field Grade Article 15, dated 24 January 2004, and as it was approved by the separation authority.  Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's DD Form 214, block 4,a; Grade, Rate, or Rank and block 4, b; Pay Grade, 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 January 2010         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA






VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
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 4, a; Grade, Rate, or Rank and block 4, b; Pay Grade, of your DD Form 214 and requires an administrative correction.   In view of the foregoing, the Board directed ARBA Support Division St. Louis to correct block 4, a; Grade, Rate, or Rank to reflect PVT, and block 4, b; Pay Grade to reflect E1, and issue you a new DD Form 214.  Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's  Grade, Rate, or Rank and Pay Grade, 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 2    No change 3
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 direct ARBA Support Division St. Louis to correct block 4, a; Grade, Rate, or Rank to reflect PVT, and block 4, b; Pay Grade to reflect E1. 										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090007749
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages