Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/13	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting 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: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070510   Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: 542d Medical Company, 6th GSAB, Ft Campbell, KY 

Time Lost: None

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:  22
Current ENL Date: 060220    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 02Mos, 20Days ?????
Total Service:  		4 Yrs, 07Mos, 01Days Immediate reenlistment
Previous Discharges: 	USAR 021010-040325/HD
                                       RA 040326-060219/HD
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 68W10/Health Care Specialist   GT: 117   EDU: GED   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Kuwait/Iraq (050917-060823)
Decorations/Awards: AM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Dallas, TX
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 all 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 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 a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  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."   
       Additionally, the record contains a memorandum dated 21 February 2007, from the Staff Judge Advocate, 101st Airborne Division, which indicates that the Applicant was charged with conspiracy, failure to obey a lawful general order, failure to turn over abandoned property, and improperly disposing of an explosive.   This document indicates that the entire chain of command recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request in lieu of trial by court martial submitted by the Applicant on 9 February 2007.  His chapter 10 request indicates that he consulted with legal counsel, was advised of his rights and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  
       On 21 February 2007, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions and granted him immunity for his testimony.  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 and documents 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. 
       Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue and determined the method in which another Soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case.  Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case.  
       Additionally, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst presumed government regularity and was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  
       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.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 25 January 2010         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: Yes

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: None

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, and hearing the applicant's testimony, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service to include his combat service mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  Further, this action entails restoration to the grade of E4. 
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 3    No change 2
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: E4
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090009374
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages