Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/05/09	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant submitted no issues of equity or propriety. 

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: 970826
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 971124   Chapter: 10     AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: HHC, USAG, Fort McPherson, GA 

Time Lost: AWOL x 1 for a total of 1458 days (940421 - 970821), mode of return unknown.

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:  22
Current ENL Date: 930104    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	4   Yrs, 10 Mos, 21 Days Includes 90 days of excess leave (970827 - 971124)
Total Service:  		6   Yrs, 6   Mos, 23 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 890809 - 930103/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 74C10 Record Telecommunications Operator-Maintainer   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: SWA (910203 - 910503)
Decorations/Awards: BSM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, SWASM x2BSS, NPDR, ASR, OSR, KLM/SA, KLM/KU

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 26 August 1997, the applicant was charged with AWOL (940421 - 970821).  
       
       On 26 August 1997, 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 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 17 October 1997, 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 the applicant’s available military records, the issue and documents 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. 
       
       Although the applicant did not properly annotate the DD Form 293 requesting a review of his record for a possible upgrade of his discharge; he was given the benefit of this review as instructed in pertinent part (E.3.1.3.2) by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge.
       
       Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.
       
       The Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.
       
       Therefore, the analyst determined 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: 16 December 2011         Location: Washington, D. C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 and a DD Form 214

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 2    No change 3
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: ?????

Official:




BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder







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 AR20110010564
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages