Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/07/08	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states: "There are several reasons why I am requesting a change of my discharge status, which include:

1. An error on  the Memorandum for the Delegation of Authority for my discharge.

2. Better employment opportunities.

3. The potential for re-enlistment

4. The fact that I was a good soldier with no previous disciplinary actions.

5. The fact that I tried to better myself and my situation to be a better leader for my soldiers and my family."

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: 980817
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 980916   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: 4th Chem Co, Camp Casey, Korea 

Time Lost: AWOL x 1 for 154 days (971222-980524), surrendered.

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:  27
Current ENL Date: 960501    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 02Mos, 19Days Includes 108 days of excess leave (980601-980916).
Total Service:  		05 Yrs, 06Mos, 06Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-921007-960431/HD
Highest Grade: E5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 54B10/Chem Ops Sp   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, NCOPDR, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Killeen, TX
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that she just graduated from college with a BS in Criminal Justice.




VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 1 June 1998, the applicant was charged with AWOL (971222-980525).  On 4 June 1998, 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 she understood that she 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 her own behalf.  The unit commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 26 August 1998, 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.

       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 she 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.  
       
       The narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives.  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial," and the separation code is "KFS."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issue that she was a good Soldier with no previous disciplinary actions, acknowledges the applicant's prior period of service, noted her transition to civilian life and noted the accomplishments outlined with the application and in the documents with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  
       
       Reference the applicant issues of better employment opportunities and the potential for reenlistment.  The Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Further, if reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact the local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate.
       
       The applicant contends that she tried to better herself and her situation to be a better leader for her Soldier and family.  However, the analyst determined that 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.
       
       The applicant also contends that the Memorandum for the Commander for the Delegation of Authority was signed while she was on active duty attending BNCOC, and she questions the legitimacy and authority of the document.  However, the document in question was only intended to give the Commander, Personnel and Support Battalion the authority to approve requests for discharge in lieu of trial by courts-martial submitted by Soldiers assigned to the personnel control facility (PCF) under his special court-martial jurisdiction.  The delegation was valid until revoked in writing.  On 4 June 1998, 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 view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the characterization of service and reason for discharge 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: 7 May 2010         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted a self authored statement, three page college transcript, dated 25 June 2009, and a two page document in support of her case.

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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA



































Legend:
AWOL    	Absent Without Leave		GCM   General Court Martial	NA   Not applicable			SCM	Summary Court Martial
BCD   	Bad Conduct Discharge	GD      General Discharge	NIF   Not in the file			SPCM	Special Court Martial
CG 	Company Grade Article 15	HD      Honorable Discharge	OAD   Ordered to Active Duty		UNC	Uncharacterized Discharge  
DD 	Dishonorable Discharge	HS       High School Graduate	OMPF   Official Military Personnel File	UOTH  	Under Other Than Honorable 
FG	Field Grade Article 15		IADT   Initial Active Duty Training	RE     Reentry Code				Conditions 

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090011488
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages