Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/09/08	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: 	NIF   Date: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 000808   Chapter: 10     AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: HHD, U.S. Army Central ID Lab, Hickam AFB, HI 

Time Lost: AWOL x 2 for 9 days (000209-000215) and (000222-000223), mode of return unknown; confinement military authorities for 1 day (000224-000224).  Total time lost 10 days.  

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:  32
Current ENL Date: 990830    Current ENL Term: Indef Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 11Mos, 00Days ?????
Total Service:  		15 Yrs, 02Mos, 15Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-850514-881211/HD
                                       RA-881212-920611/HD
                                       RA-920612-940309/HD
                                       RA-940310-960923/HD
                                       RA-960924-990829/HD
Highest Grade: E-7		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92M10 Mortuary Affairs Spec/31C10 Single Channel Radio Operator   GT: 107   EDU: 14 Years   Overseas: Germany/Alaska/Hawaii   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: MSM, ARCOM-3, AAM-4, AGCM-4, NDSM, AFEM, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-3

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Nanakuli, HI
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 20 June 2000, the applicant was charged with AWOL x 2 (000209-000216) and (000222-000224); failure to report (000524); failure to obey a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully possessing an unregistered weapon (000224); wrongful use of cocaine (000216-000223), wrongful use of amphetamines (000216-000223), wrongful use of methamphetamines (000216-000223), wrongful use of butibarbital (000504-000511), wrongful possession of marijuana (000224); and stealing money, of a value of about $3, 057.00, the property of the United States Government.  On 5 July 2000, 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's did not submit a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander's documentation recommending approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge is not part of the available record and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  The senior intermediate commander recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 26 July 2000, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.
       
       The applicant's record contains a CID Report of Investigation dated 4 April 2000.
       
       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 an 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 issues and documents 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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant’s issues and the document outlining the series of events that occurred during her military service;  although the applicant alleges that she was a victim of sexual assault and harassment, sexual abuse and discrimination, there is no evidence in her military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting these issues.  Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge.  Further, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  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.  Also, the analyst noted the applicant's issue that she eventually broke down and became a substance abuser; 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.  Additionally, the analyst acknowledges the independent document (Department of Veteran Affairs) submitted with the application indicating that the applicant was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and was granted a 50% disability rating; however, the analyst determined that the applican's discharge was not due to the result of any medical condition, but due to her misconduct.  Finally, the analyst considered the applicant’s quality of service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge. 
       
       
       
       
       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 changed to "4" as approved by the separation approving authority.  Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's reentry eligibility (RE) code, 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: 30 October 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 directs that the ARBA Support Division-St Louis to administratively change block 27, reentry eligibility (RE) code to "4."  Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's reentry eligibility (RE) code, 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 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: No Change
Other: The Board directs ARBA Support Division-St Louis to administratively change block 27, reentry eligibility (RE) code to "4."  										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090015638
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages