Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/01/20	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on him being two days late from leave.  He requested an extention because his car broke down while he was on leave in Louisiana.  He had to wait on the part to arrive to make it back to Fort Carson, Colorado.  He believes he had ten more leave dates saved up and he was denied an extention.  Therefore he was listed as AWOL.  He served his country proudly and he would do it again with no questions asked.  

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: 041207
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 041222   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: Company G, 64th Brigade Support Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, Fort Carson, CO 

Time Lost: AWOL x 2 from (040427-040503) for 7 days. The mode of return is unknown.  AWOL from (040927-041025) for 29 days. The applicant was apprehended by the civilian authorities and was transferred to Fort Carson, CO.  The total time lost was 36 days.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040614, AWOL from (040427-040503), reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $596.00 pay per month for two months, extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG)

030220, wrongfully used marijuana between (021120)-021220), reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $575.00 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:  20
Current ENL Date: 010726    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 3 Mos, 21 Days The net active service this period on the DD Form 214, block 12c is incorrect, should be as annotated above.  The applicant was AWOL from (040427-040503).  See DA Form 4187.  Also, the applicant was retained for 92 days as essential to National Security, 10 USC Par 1-A.
Total Service:  		3 Yrs, 3 Mos, 21 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13E10 Cannon Fire Direction Spec   GT: 100   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Kuwait/Iraq (030401-040331)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, ASR, OSR (2)

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 5 November 2004, the applicant was charged with failing to go to his appointed place of duty x 3 0630 physical training formation  (040628), (040629), (040630), failed to go to his appointed place of duty 0900 accountability formation x 3 (040628), (040629), (040630), (AWOL from (040927-041025), and wrongfully used marijuana between (040620-040719).  On 1 December 2004, 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 commander's recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 8 December 2004, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       The record contains a CID Report of Investigation in reference to the applicant's offense of wrongfully using marijuana dated 1 April 2003.   

       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 his discharge was inequitable because it was based on him being two days late from leave and he believes that he had ten more leave days saved up and he was denied an extention.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was more than two days late, but was charged with two periods of AWOL totaling 36 days of lost time, to include other acts of misconduct.  Further, 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 applicant further contends that he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to his misconduct.  Specifically, he claims that his car broke down while he was on leave in Louisiana and he had to wait on the part to arrive so that he could make it back to Fort Carson, Colorado.  While the applicant may believe his situation with his car was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from this issue through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services and the Community Counseling Center, and other resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.  
       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: 26 August 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 19 December 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 AR20110001520
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages