Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/12/02	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states:  "I would like to pursue my only chance at redemption for self-dignity, honor and to remove the stains of remorse for allowing a magnitude of such subsequent events that inevitably led to my failure to complete my duties in the any branch of the U.S. Military.  My discharge was inequitable because approximately six months into the service, after graduating basic and moving to my AIT, I had experienced adversities-- mentally, physically and spiritually. While serving, I tried my hardest to oversee these obstacles and continue my endeavors... through, in my humbled opinion, one of the hardest schools in the branch of service -- EOD.  I convinced myself I was being trained by the best in EOD to save more lives by ridding the infestations of insurgents’ traps and ordnance rather than ending them through the end of a barrel. I did not wish to end a life, albeit if l had to save my own life I would indeed make the choice to do so. This being the first obstacle in my path, it was a light one, or at least, could have been. 1 was denied church service on occasion. This developed some anger. Natural anger, nothing crazy, I was no’ trouble for anyone, Drill Sergeants, mind you, existed at Redstone Arsenal at the time.  A disappointment, bat nothing I couldn’t live through. But for sake of a limited space available, I was denied many things from my Company Drill, In particular: Denied Medical Service for Pneumonia which my fever went to 104 after asking several times (before school started). I had passed out in my room at 7pm and my roommate showed the only concern for this.  Denied basic medical service for hives (no history of breakouts). This happened my last week of class and I could NOT miss one class, 1 was very adamant about graduating. I suffered without medication. I also experienced a seizure, Iwo witnesses were there and was Denied medical for that as well.   Denied wisdom teeth removal as well.  I am still suffering consequences of this action (or lack thereof).  I spoke to JAG during out-processing and they told me it was considered neglect. I could not, however, follow through since the Drill Sergeants were no longer at Redstone at the time, I did complete phase I of EOD training at Redstone. I went home on approved leave for 12 days with a one way plane ticket with the intentions of returning to my new duty station at Eglin AEB via ground transportation (rental car). This purpose was so I could bring certain possessions with me, because my mother, whom I lived with prior to enlistment, was moving and I had to take what I need/wanted. I had not been eligible to rent a car, so’ had to fly back,’ called one of my Drill Sergeants who had give,’ me two extra days of leave so that I may receive another pay period. Being that I was only an E-2, I still was short a couple hundred dollars and I called the CQ once more for my 1) 8 and different DS told me not to come back, I suppose they thought I was making up excuses to stay home or something. My intentions were always pure and if it had not been for these situations, I would have served my full time and possibly longer (as I foresaw an elongated career as an EOD unit). I do believe myself to be adequate to fulfill my duties and obligations henceforth, no matter what.  Expenses on my end are limited and will use maximum available resources to appear, if need be.  It has been four years and I have matured tremendously.  I have gained a significant amount of knowledge and experience as to where I can make a competent decision in great confidence. I wish to eliminate any or all bad terms with any branch or service by fulfilling my duties as a service member. This goes without saying the same for personal relationships and those who were affected by my failure to fulfill."

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: 090202
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 090327   Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: C Co, 832d OD Bn, Redstone Arsenal AL 

Time Lost: 611 days, AWOL (070518-090119), apprehended

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:  20
Current ENL Date: 060808    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 11 Mos, 18 Days Included 53 days of excess leave (090203-090327)
Total Service:  		00 Yrs, 11 Mos, 18 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: 106   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 2 February 2009, the applicant was charged with being absent without leave for 611 days until his apprehension (070518-090120).  
       
       On 2 February 2009, 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 he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and 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 the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 9 March 2009, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  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 issues 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 applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because he experienced adversity and was denied medical services.  However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that he was unjustly denied medical services.   The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and he has not provided any documentation or further evidence in support of his request for an upgrade of his discharge.   Furthermore, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and 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 would also like to rejoin and fulfill his obligation as a service member.  However, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “4.”  An RE code of “4” cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. 
       
       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: 20 April 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: None























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: NA
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA

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 AR20110023926
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 4 pages