Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/10/23	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 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: 090127
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 090206   Chapter: 10      AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: A Battery, 3-17th FA, Ft Lewis, WA 

Time Lost: AWOL, 363 days (071011-081007) returned to unit.

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:  23
Current ENL Date: 061129    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 02Mos, 07Days ?????
Total Service:  		5 Yrs, 05Mos, 05Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 020905-061128 (Concurrent Service)
                                      ARNG 011115-030919 (HD)
Highest Grade: E5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B/U6 Cannon Crewmember   GT: 104   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Afghanistan x2 (030710-040415) and (060208-070515)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM x3, AGCM x2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR x2, CAB, ACM/w2BSS

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Aberdeen, MD
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 20 January 2009, the applicant was charged with AWOL (071011-081008).  On 26 January 2009, 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  recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and the and intermediate commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions.  On 2 February 2009, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

       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.  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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue, and determined that the record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  The record does not support the issue that the applicant suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  The analyst noted the memorandum of record  from the social worker dated 081124, but there is no diagnosed of PTSD.  There is however, a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct.  Further, the memorandum states consideration of a diagnosis for PTSD is warranted based on the symptoms, but the applicant was not diagnosed with PTSD.  Additionally, there is a report of a mental status evaluation dated 081014 by a certified psychiatrist indicating that the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, cannabis abuse and alcohol abuse.  Therefore, the analyst determined 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: 20 November 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 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
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090018687
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages