Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120007583
Original file (AR20120007583.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/04/17	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he requests an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.  He contends he left the Army due to being diagnosed with testicular cancer.  He further contends having no other problems or disciplinary issues during his military career.  He also contends he served in the Navy and received numerous commendations. 

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: 120206
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 120217   Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: B Btry, 1-56th ADA Regt, Fort Bliss, TX 

Time Lost: AWOL for 2,761 days; (040624-120114), 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:  31
Current ENL Date: 040330    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  block 12a on the DD Form 214 dated entered active duty this period, is incorrect and should read (040330), see enlistment contract.
Current ENL Service: 	00  Yrs, 03  Mos, 23  Days block 12c on the DD Form 214 net active service this period, is incorrect and should read 00 Yrs, 03 Mos, 23 days.
Total Service:  		03  Yrs, 05  Mos, 18  Days includes 15 days of excess leave (120203-120217)
Previous Discharges: 	USN-910624-940808/HD
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, (SWASM, AFEM, SSDR, JMUA, all prior service)

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 3 February 2012, the applicant was charged with absenting himself from his unit (AWOL) (040624-120115).  On 3 February 2012, 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 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 8 February 2012, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and document submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that 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 that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.  By the misconduct (i.e., AWOL), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge. 
        
       The applicant contends he left the Army due to being diagnosed with testicular cancer.  The applicant bears the burden of the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his contention.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was diagnosed with cancer.
       
       Further, the applicant had many legitimate avenues (i.e., Chaplain, Community Counseling Center and other medical resources available to all Soldiers)  through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.
       
       The applicant further contends having no other problems or disciplinary issues during his military career.  Even though a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.
       
       The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       
       The applicant also contends he served in the Navy and received numerous commendations.  Careful consideration was given to his entire service record, to include his prior service; however; the analyst determined that this service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.  
       
       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 September 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated (120301); and an e-mail, dated (090522).

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: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




ARCHIE L. DAVIS III
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 AR20120007583
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090002798

    Original file (AR20090002798.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120009586

    Original file (AR20120009586.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110017332

    Original file (AR20110017332.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100000815

    Original file (AR20100000815.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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:...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120008391

    Original file (AR20120008391.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that she is requesting an upgrade of her discharge to honorable following the release from active duty for being AWOL because her family care plan had failed and she had no choice (death of provider). 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110023496

    Original file (AR20110023496.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 030402, failed to obey a lawful general regulation by wrongfully consuming alcoholic beverages underage (030322); reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $269 pay (suspended), extra duty for 14 days and restriction for 14 days, (CG). On 21 July 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120005867

    Original file (AR20120005867.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? However, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, by reason of in lieu of trial by a court-martial with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, and notwithstanding the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110016426

    Original file (AR20110016426.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 090310 Discharge Received: Date: 090520 Chapter: 3-13 AR: 600-8-24 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: DFS Unit/Location: HHC, USAREUR/7th Army, Germany Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. On 23 April 2009, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110023365

    Original file (AR20110023365.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 28 June 199, 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 commission of a serious offense for wrongfully using marijuana, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 27 November 2002, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120006688

    Original file (AR20120006688.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The applicant contends that he was discharged under the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy; however, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.