Applicant Name: ?????
Application Receipt Date: 2011/04/06 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA
I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change
Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he was not on active duty for more than 180 days.
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: 100514
Discharge Received: Date: 100611 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Company D, 2nd Battalion, 81st Armor, Fort Knox, KY
Time Lost: AWOL x 1 from (090322-100501) for 405 days. The applicant was apprehended by the civilian authorities at Canton, OH and was transferred to Fort Knox, KY.
Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Counseling Records Available: Yes No
IV. Soldiers Overall Record
Age at current enlistment: 20
Current ENL Date: OADT/090113 Current ENL Term: 6 Months Years NA
Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 3 Mos, 19 Days The computation includes 29 days of excess leave from (100514-100611).
Total Service: 0 Yrs, 10 Mos, 6 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: ARNG 080625-090112/UNC
Highest Grade: E-1 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No
MOS: 19K10 M1 Armor Crewman GT: NIF EDU: HS GED Overseas: None Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, ASR
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 13 May 2010, the applicant was charged with AWOL from (090322-100501). On 13 May 2010, 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 veterans 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 2 June 2010, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
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 individuals 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 applicants 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 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 the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.
The analyst noted the applicant's issue that he was not on active duty for more than 180 days. The evidence of record shows that the applicant without authority departed his unit in an AWOL status and was subsequently apprehended by the civilian authorities. Army Regulation 635-200 also provides, except in cases of serious misconduct, that a soldiers service will be uncharacterized when his separation is initiated while the soldier is in entry level status. The applicant by going AWOL constituted an act of serious misconduct which is punishable under the UCMJ. Further, the record shows that the applicant after his apprehension consulted with legal counsel and requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 in lieu of a trial by court-martial.
The applicant further request that his narrative reason for separation be changed. The narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial", the separation code is "KFS", and the reentry code is "RE 4".
Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28, separation code, entered in block 26, and 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. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.
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: 14 October 2011 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No
Counsel: None
Witnesses/Observers: NA
Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 1 April 2011.
VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts 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 AR20110006607
______________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 3 pages
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100016995
On 11 December 2009, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicants military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable...
ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120002388
Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 31 January 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct- commission of a serious offense for wrongfully possessing marijuana, and for being drunk and disorderly (100501), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 10 February 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative...
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100019490
Applicant Name: ????? On 15 June 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090012354
Applicant Name: ????? Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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.
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080000282
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 | AR20090011175
The analyst noted that on the applicant's DD Form 214 block 27, reentry eligibility (RE) code reads "3," however, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial, which according to AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD)/Reentry (RE) Codes Cross-Reference Table, requires a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "4." It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080001454
Applicant Name: ????? Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. Facts and Circumstances: The applicant's record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army (i.e, DD Form 458 Charge Sheet, the unit commander's recommendation for discharge and the separation approving authority's documentation) are not part of the available record and the...
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100025634
Applicant Name: ????? Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he requests an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable, and a change to the narrative reason for separation, separation (SPD) code, and the reentry eligibility (RE) code. 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.
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090014148
Applicant Name: ????? The unit commander recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090012899
Applicant Name: ????? c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicants military records during the period of enlistment under review and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit a change to the narrative reason for discharge on the applicant's DD Form 214. Further, the applicant requests that the reason for his discharge be changed.