Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/06/24	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he came back from Iraq and couldn't cope with the stress, so he went home.  He still has nightmares from over there and asking for an upgrade to show that he was a good Soldier.  

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: 021008
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040706   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: Bravo Battery, 1st Battalion, 41st Field Artillery, Division Artillery, Fort Stewart, GA 

Time Lost: AWOL x 4 (020520-020604) for 15 days, returned to his unit; AWOL (020619-020708) for 20 days, returned to his unit; AWOL 020712-020719) for 8 days, returned to his unit; AWOL 020722-020926) for 65 days, the applicant returned to his unit.  Total time lost 108 days.  Also, there were two periods of lost time according to the DA Form 4187's which shows the applicant was AWOL again (030228-030826) for 180 days, apprehended by the civilian authorities at Fulton, GA and was transferred to Fort Stewart, GA, however, the beginning date of the AWOL period conflicts with the date the applicant was serving in Iraq; confined by the civiil authorities (030828-040601) 275 days that was not annotated on the DD Form 214; block 29, or block 18 remarks.  Total time lost should be: 563 days and the net active service  this period on the DD Form 214, block12c should reflect: 1 year, 3 months, 6 days.

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:  18
Current ENL Date: 010905    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 6 Mos, 11 Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 6 Mos, 11 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B10 Cannon Crewmember   GT: 91   EDU: HS GED   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (030119-030721)
Decorations/Awards: 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 7 October 2002, the applicant was charged with AWOL x 4 (020529-020605), (020619-020719), (020712-020719), (020722-020727), filed to go to his appointed place of duty x 7 (020415), (020502), (020507), (020508), (020508), (020515), (020528), disobeyed a lawful command from a 1LT (020927), and damaged military property in the amount of $100.00 (020520).  On 8 October 2002, 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 8 October 2002, the intermediate commander recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 
       
       On 8 October 2002, the senior intermediate commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 10 October 2002, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.  On  29 June 2004, DA, HQ, 3rd Infantry Division, (Mechanized) Fort Stewart, GA, issued Orders 181-0057, wnich discharged the applicant from the Regular Army with an effective date of: 6 July 2004.   

       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.  
       
       Furthermore, the analyst noted that the DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document-Drug Testing) found in the applicant's official record shows that the test was coded CO which indicates "Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty.”  The commander directs an individual test for fitness for duty.  The commander has a suspicion that a Soldier is using a controlled substance; however, does not have probable cause.  The Limited Use Policy applies to this test basis, per AR 600-85. 
       
       
       
       
       
       However, the evidence of record contains several counseling statements that indicate the applicant went awol and upon his returned he was counseled.  This would have given the unit commander probable cause to direct the urinalysis based on the commander's policy letter or SOP, used to test individuals after 30 days leave.  Additionally, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, who would have informed him if the Limited Use Policy applied. 
       
       In view of the aforementioned, the analyst determined that the code on the DD Form 2624 was in all likelihood incorrect and should have been coded IO for “Inspection Other” instead of CO for “Competence for Duty.”  The analyst concluded that the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case.  The evidence did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made.
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issue that he came back from Iraq and couldn't cope with the stress, so he went home.  He still has nightmares from over there and asking for an upgrade to show that he was a good Soldier.  The analyst considered the applicant’s quality of service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review. 
       
       However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge.  Further. the applicant contends he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to his misconduct. 
       
       Specifically, he claims that when he came back from Iraq he couldn't cope with the stress which resulted in his discharge.  While the applicant may believe his stress while serving in the military was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from his stress through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical 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: 28 December 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 8 June 2011.
















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						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)

X.  Board Action Directed
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

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




EDGAR J. YANGER
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
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 AR20110013358
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages