Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/09/21	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, "I feel that my discharge was inequitable since it does not reflect my otherwise outstanding and dedicated service in the US Army.  Furthermore, it does not reflect the person I am today and the commnitment I have to serving my country.  I feel that an upgrade in my discharge would benefit my family's and my own future."

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: 020123
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 020222   Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: 977th MP Co, Ft Riley, KS 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 010619, assault on PVT M by striking him repeatedly with a closed fist in the face (010602); extra duty for a period of 8 days, restriction for 6 days (CG).

010130, remission of punishment, reduction to the grade of E2 and extra duty for 7 days, suspended until 010222.

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 010629    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 08Mos, 13Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 08Mos, 13Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 990610-010628 Concurrent Service
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 63B10 Light Wheeled Mech    GT: 90   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant states he has been working for Lier Siegler Services for almost five years, has deployed to Iraq in support of OIF and continues to serve in a civilian capacity.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 23 January 2002, the applicant was charged with stealing two sweatpants, four shirts and one sweat shirt property of AAFES on 011015.  
       On  30 January 2002 , 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 and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       On 11 February 2002, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 
       The record also contains a MP Report dated 010602 citing the applicant as the Subject for Assault consummated by battery.

       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, under honorable conditions 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 analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of the former Soldier’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  
       The analyst acknowledges the applicant's inservice and post-service accomplishments attached to 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.  
       Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  
       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: 21 July 2010         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: Sefl-authored statement (1 page), DD Form 214, Certificate of Training for UP-Armored HMMWV (1 page), Certificate of Promotion to Specialist (1 page), Certificate of Achievement/Appreciation (4 pages), Individual Training Record (1 page).

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: No Change
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 AR20090016331
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages