Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100007584
Original file (AR20100007584.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/01/27	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states in effect, that he wants to be able to go back into the military. When he was in basic training, he thought that he could go home when he graduated. So when he found out that he was marked AWOL, he got scared because he did not want to go to prison. He wants to change all of this and go back into the military so that he can be an American Soldier and serve his country.  

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: 081008
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 081201   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: C Company, 369th Signal Battalion, 15th Signal Brigade, Fort Gordon, GA 

Time Lost: AWOL x 1 for 307 days from (071103-080905). The applicant was apprehended by the civilian authorities at Conroe, TX and was transferred to Fort Sill, OK.

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:  18
Current ENL Date: 070814    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	0 Yrs, 5 Mos, 15 Days The computation includes 81 days of excess leave from (080912-081201)
Total Service:  		0 Yrs, 5 Mos, 15 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-1		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
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 11 September 2008, the applicant was charged with AWOL from (071103-080905).  On 12 September 2008, 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 recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 14 November 2008, 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, 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 submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which 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 the applicant was aware of it prior to requesting discharge. 
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issue that when he was in basic training, he thought that he could go home after graduation and when he found out that he was marked AWOL, he got scared because he did not want to go to prison.  He wants to change all of this and go back into the military, so that he can be an American Soldier and serve his country.  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.  Further, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “4.”  An RE code of “4” cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. 
       
       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: 13 October 2010         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 15 January 2010.







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: No Change										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change






























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 AR20100007584
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080005105

    Original file (AR20080005105.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. 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: None ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100018978

    Original file (AR20100018978.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues, and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found several mitigating factors which would merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. Futhermore, reference the applicant's request for a honorable discharge, the analyst noted by the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080020093

    Original file (AR20080020093.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. 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 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090006151

    Original file (AR20090006151.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony and...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100015659

    Original file (AR20100015659.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070011281

    Original file (AR20070011281.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 12 March 2007, 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. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst noted that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, and the supporting documents from the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas and circumstances surrounding the discharge,...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080013347

    Original file (AR20080013347.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090011230

    Original file (AR20090011230.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080001423

    Original file (AR20080001423.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. 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 President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120000105

    Original file (AR20120000105.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he made a critical mistake and requests an upgrade of his discharge to a general, under honorable conditions in order to reenlist and correct his mistake. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.