Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/07/26	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, "As per the instructions for filing this form DD 293, there are two seperate and distinct categories under which all issues should be considered:  namely, Impropriety and Inequity.  I will attempt to address each herein, specifically as it relates  to my request for an upgrade in my discharge from the Army.  I will show that the original processing of my discharge was wholly incomplete and inaccurate, as shown on my DD 214.  I will request that this be corrected.  Furthermore, I will demonstrate that in-light of my outstanding service record I was inequitably treated and discharged at a lower level (Other Than Honorable) than was warranted and given an improperly low Re-enlistment Code (RE-4).

The DD 214 was prepared in my absence and lists, under item 21, "Signature of Member Being Seperated" that "SOLDIER NOT AVAILABLE TO SIGN".  Therefore I was never given an opportunity to review this document before it was completed and submitted  to the Department of the ARMY (DA).  I have subsequently requested a copy of my DA 201 (Personnel File) be sent to me from the National Archives.

First we will consider the impropriety of my discharge.  A review of my DD 214, item 13, "Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized", lists "ARMY GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL//NOTHING FOLLOWS".  This is wholly  inaccurate and reflects gross negligence on the part of those responsible for preparing this document.  Indeed, the following  must be duly noted and reflected on my DD 214 in order to fully reflect the character of my service:

 - The Army Commendation Medal was awarded, Permanent Order # XXX-XXX, dated XX AUGUST 2002
 - The Good Conduct Medal was awarded, Permanent Order # 105-208, dated 15 APRIL 2002
 - The Army Achievement Medal was awarded, Permanent Order # 299-44, dated 26 OCTOBER 2001
 - The National Defense Medal was authorized for Active Duty service in the Regular Army subsequent to 11 SEPTEMBER 2001;

 - The Non-Commissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon was authorized subsequent to graduation from the Primary  Leadership Development Course (PLDC) XX MAY 2001
 - The Army Service Ribbon was authorized subsequent to graduation from Intelligence Analyst Basic Course (Advanced  Individual Training - AIT), Ft. Huachuca, AZ, dated XX DECEMBER 2000
 - Marksmanship Badge was authorized for M16 qualification XX MONTH 2001
 - Sharpshooter Badge was authorized for M203 grenade launcher qualificaiton XX MONTH 2001

In other words, had the above awards, ribbons and badges been correctly noted a fuller picture of my honorable service would have been seen.

Continuing with the impropriety of my discharge as it relates to inaccuracies on my DD 214:  item 14, "Military Education",  lists "DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER, APR 1999//NOTHING FOLLOWS".  [It should be noted that this date is wrong.  I enrolled APR 1999, and graduated AUGUST 2000]  Again, I have much difficulty understanding the lack of research that went into accurately recording my military service!  Perhaps the Personnel Control Facility (PCF) at Ft. Sill, OK was so focused on out-processing Initial Entry Training (IET) soldiers that they were totally unprepared for a Service Member with my background ... we can only speculate.

Let the record show the following courses should have been reflected on my DD 214:

 - Basic Combat Training (BCT), Ft. Jackson, SC, 9 weeks duration, completed APR 1999
 - Arabic Basic Course, Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), Presidio of Monterey, CA, 60 weeks duration, completed AUGUST 2000
 - Basic Intelligence Analyst Course (AIT), Ft. Huachuca, AZ, 12 weeks duration, completed DECEMBER 2000
 - Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC), Ft. Polk, LA, 4 weeks duration, completed MAY 2001

Additionally, the DD 214 does not allow for Security Clearances to be listed, but I believe this is comletely relevant to our discussion, especially as it pertains to a fuller characterization of my service.  This record should reflect that I held a "TOP SECRET - SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTALIZED INFORMATION" (TS-SCI) clearance.  [It sould be noted that I was never in any way "de-briefed", as would have been proper and mandatory for someone of my security clearance level.  I never was presented with, nor signed a "non-disclosure" statement when I out-processed at Ft. Sill, OK.  I can only guess that the PCF totally missed the fact that I was high-level security Service Member.]

To sum up my issues regarding the impropriety of my discharge:  my DD 214 does not accurately reflect my awards nor my military training.  The complete picture of who SGT (E-5) [redacted] was, can only be seen after looking at all of the above stated corrections.  Indeed, a review of my last NCOER (reviewed and signed by a LTC O-5) shows that I was serving as a Battalion S-2 NCOIC.  In fact, because our Battalion had no official S-2 commissioned officer, I was solely responsible for the intelligence briefings of our units to Afghanistan and Uzbekistan.  I processed 100% of the security clearance applicaitons for our battalion.  I assisted Brigade S-2 with preparing pre-deployment intel briefings for Operations ISO the Global War on Terror.  I used my training in Arabic to assist units deploying to the Middle East on operations such as Bright Star (Egypt).  I was solely resposible for maintaing the classified documents and the physical security of the Battalion.  Clearly my service was honorable."

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: 030326
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 030512   Chapter: 10      AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: 1st AG Repl Det, Korea  

Time Lost: AWOL for 131 days (020912-030120), 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:  24
Current ENL Date: 990120    Current ENL Term: 05 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03  Yrs, 11 Mos, 12 Days ?????
Total Service:  		03  Yrs, 11 Mos, 12 Days includes 109 days of excess leave (030124-030512)
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 96B10 Intelligence Analyst   GT: 130   EDU: College Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Arcadia, CA 
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 23 January 2003, the applicant was charged with absenting himself from his unit (AWOL) (020912-030121).  On 24 January 2003, 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 the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 
       
       On 18 April 2003, 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. 

       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 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.  By the misconduct (i.e., AWOL), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
       
       The applicant contends he was inequitably treated and discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and an improper reentry eligibility (RE ) code of "4."  Although the applicant alleges that he was  inequitably treated during his military service, there is no evidence in his military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention.  Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
       
       Further, Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the RE Code, entered in block 27 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.  At the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “4.”    
       
       Additionally, 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.  
       
       The analyst noted the many 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.
       
       Furthermore, regarding the applicant's contentions concerning errors on his DD Form 214, these corrections do not fall within the purview of this Board.  The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), utilizing the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter.  A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 
       
       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: 15 April 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: Online application, dated (100723); Statement, three (3) pages; Citation, Good Conduct Medal, dated (020415); Citation, AAM, dated (011026); DA Form 638 (Recommendation For Award), two (2) pages, dated (011025); and a DD Form 214, dated (030512).   

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: None














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 AR20100018718
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 4 of 4 pages