DRB DIGEST/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRB DOCKET 2013-023
CURRENT DD-214 Other Than Honorable, COMDTINST M1000.4 ART. 1.B.20, KFS, Triable by
Court Martial, RE4
RELIEF REQUESTED
BY DRB
CORRECTIONS
| TIS
Policy Implications
4 yrs, 9 months, 16 days
None
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant was discharged for Triable By Court Martial due to be being an accessory in theft (after the fact),
disobeying a direct order, and procuring a prostitute. The applicant requested to be separated ‘For the Good of
the Service’ in lieu of the Court martial (CM) proceedings and punishment. Additionally, the signed agreement
was based on the applicant providing any details on the shipmate involved in a incident of stealing a woman’s
purse in the summer of 2012, and then the applicant drove away from the scene knowing the crime the
shipmate had committed.
The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. The applicant voluntarily requested this
discharge via memorandum in the Fall of 2012. The applicant knowingly requested and accepted an ‘Other
Than Honorable’ discharge. The applicant also spoke with USN counsel on the matter, but did not desire to
make a statement. At face value, the Board does not find the applicant’s discharge to be in error. Conversely,
the Board has had an opportunity to also consider the applicant’s written letter, spoken testimony, character
letters, and otherwise spotless record of service.
Therefore, the board by a majority vote of (4-1) recommends an upgrade to Under Honorable Conditions
for the following reasons:
The Board does not find that the applicant was fully proven to be an ‘accessory’ given there is no premeditated
behavior demonstrated with the other shipmate that instigated the incident.
The command climate (in a sensitive OUTCONUS location) prompted a harsher penalty on the applicant. Due
to the future probability of similar undesirable activities by the crew, the command wanted to make an example
that further actions of this nature would not be tolerated.
As part of the aforementioned agreement while facing (CM) charges, the applicant had to agree to an Under
Other Than Honorable discharge, and testify against the other shipmate involved. The majority Board
concludes that this is not considered a serious offense. Additionally, it’s an isolated incident in which the
punishments and separation appear to exceed the articles violated.
If the applicant proceeded with Summary Court Martial proceeding, the board has reasonable doubt (based on
the aforementioned variables) that the charges against the applicant would have met all of the UCMJ elements
within each article.
The applicant’s respectable service record of 4 years and 9 months firmly illustrate a valued and trusted
professional’s body of work.
Minority Board vote of (1-4) recommends no upgrade to the Under Other Than Honorable:
The applicant entered into an agreement to be provided with greater immunity in lieu of a Court Martial
punishment. Within a Triable by Court Martial mechanism, the SPD code of KFS is the standard to separate
individuals for the ‘Good of the Service’ with the Under Other Than Honorable character of service.
NCTE RES 2 DS tetge NE oo sere. wea AT NRE AR Ps : a
Final Adjudication by Assistant Commandant For Human Resources: No relief. Concur with the Minority
Board. Stand as issued.
CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 037
DRB DIGEST/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRB DOCKET 2013-037 Other Than Honorable, COMDTINST M1000.6, Art 12-B-21, KFS, For the good of the Service, RE4 Honorable None None TIS 7 yrs, 3 months, 23 days Policy Implications _| None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant was discharged for For The Good Of The Service in the Spring of 2006. In early 2006, the applicant was facing Court Martial charges for failing to provide a valid urine sample during a unit urinalysis. The Board finds no issues with propriety...
CG | DRB | 2012 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2012 054
The applicant received punishment that was no higher than a Summary Court Martial with one guilty plea on the two charges that occurred. The applicant’s committed offense warrants no higher than an Under Honorable Conditions character of service. The General discharge was issued correctly at the time of separation in 2005.
CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 039
DRB DIGEST/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRB DOCKET 2013-039 TIS 2 yrs, 1 month, 26 days Policy Implications None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant was discharged due to a voluntary request as part of a pretrial agreement for separation in lieu of Special Court Martial proceedings. The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. The Board does note that the DD-214 incorrectly cites the Separation Authority as COMDTINST M1000.6A, Art 12.B.1.
CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 006
The applicant’s complete Personnel Data Record, Summary Courts-Martial, Pretrial Agreement, and Separation Package were available for the Board to review. The applicant (and attorney brief) states that the victims were reciprocal in the physical contact, text messages, and sexual nature initiated by the applicant. The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity on the merits of this case.
AF | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070001430
Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 07 Mos, 22 Days ????? 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.
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070001430aC071031
On 14 December 2005, the separation authority approved the discharge 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. 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...
CG | DRB | 2013 - Discharge Review Board (DRB) | 2013 053
The applicant voluntarily requested a separation for ‘The Good of the Service’ vice in lieu of the Court Martial proceedings and punishment. The Board finds no issues with propriety or equity in this case. The DD-214 was issued incorrectly with Article 1.A.1.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130000583
On 24 April 1998, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. His record documents he served a tour in combat, showed acts of significant achievement and valor; however it did not support the issuance of a general, under honorable...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080009280
Applicant Name: ????? Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.
CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2010-069
On November 7, 2005, the CO asked Commander, Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC) to discharge the applicant by reason on misconduct due to his conviction at a special court-martial. The provision further provides that CO’s “are authorized to recommend discharge at any time during the probation if the member is not making an effort to overcome the deficiency.” Article 12.B.2.f.2. However, the Board finds that even if the applicant had been placed on probation (his expiration of enlistment...