Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/12/03	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states "I would like you to reconsider my discharge. I was SGT in Bosnia twice and Egypt. I had an impeccable list of awards and NCOERS. I had recently been PCSed to a new duty assignment and was eager to make new friends. When given the chance to make things rights i didn't, not out of spite but ignorance. I didn't fully understand the repercussions of my actions. It has been 10 years since I left the Army. I was a Union Iron Worker and Carpenter up until recently. I am currently enrolled at the National Aviation Academy where I'm studying to get my Airframe and Power Plant license. I don't want the mistakes i made as a young adult to impede on the well being of my family."

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: 000811
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 000914   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: A Company, 313th Military Intelligence Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 000608, wrongfully used marijuana on or between (000405-000505), reduction to Specialist (E-4), forfeiture of $749.00 pay per month for two months, extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  23
Current ENL Date: Reenl/990630    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 2 Mos, 15 Days The net active service on the DD Form 214 item 12b and 12c is incorrect see memorandum requesting issuance of DD Form 215; should be as annotated below.
Total Service:  		5 Yrs, 11 Mos, 22 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR 940923-950103/NA
                                       RA      950104-970225/HD
                                       RA      970226-990629/HD
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 96R1P Ground Survl Sys Operator   GT: 99   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Bosnia & Egypt (dates-NIF)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM (4), GCMDL, NDSM, AFEMDL, AFSMDL, ASUA, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR (2), NATOMDL

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant stated in his issue that he was a Union Iron Worker and Carpenter up until recently.  He is currently enrolled at the National Aviation Academy where he is studying to get his Airframe and Power Plant License. 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 21 July 2000, the charges were preferred against the applicant; however, the DD Form 458 (i.e., charge sheet) is not part of the available record.  
       
       On 2 August 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 of violating Article 112a (i.e., wrongful use of cocaine) of the UCMJ, or a lesser included offense.  Further, the applicant indicated 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 August 2000, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  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 he was a SGT in Bosnia twice and in Egypt, and he had an impeccable list of awards and NCOERS.  The analyst carefully examined the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review.  There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as infraction of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offense.  The analyst concluded that the discrediting entry in the applicant's record were not outweighed by prior or subsequent service of sufficient merit to warrant an upgrade of the discharge being reviewed. 
       
       The applicant further contends that it has been 10 years since he left the Army; he was a Union Iron Worker and Carpenter up until recently; he is currently enrolled at the National Aviation Academy where he is studying to get his Airframe and Power Plant license and he doesn't want the mistakes he made as a young adult to impede on the well being of his family.  The analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and the many accomplishments outlined in his 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 analyst found that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  The analyst further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  Additionally, 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: 27 July 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: Online application dated 11 November 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.  Further, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, reentry code as “3.”  In view of this error, the Board voted to administratively change block 27, reentry code to “4, as approved by the separation authority.  

        
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 AR20100029094
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages