Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/06/20 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 submitted by the applicant. 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: NIF Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 990916 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: B Co, 1-501st IN Bn (ABN), Fort Richardson, AK Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 24 Current ENL Date: 990120 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 07Mos, 27Days ????? Total Service: 06 Yrs, 09Mos, 06Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR-921211-930609/NA RA-930610-960510/HD RA-960511-990119/HD Highest Grade: E-5 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B2P Infantryman GT: NIF EDU: 12 Years Overseas: Alaska Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Las Vegas, NV Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature. The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS (i.e., for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial), with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3." On 8 September 1999, DA, Det 2, 203rd Personnel Services Bn, Fort Richardson, Alaska, Orders 251-0003,discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective date: 16 September 1999. 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 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 available military records during the period of enlistment under review and the issues he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. Procedurally, the applicant was required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily, and in writing, request 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. Barring evidence to the contrary, the analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. It also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant would have been aware of that prior to requesting discharge. Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issues; 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. Further, the analyst determined that the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) does not contain all the specific documents that would indicate the reason for the separation action from the United States Army. If the applicant desires to appear before a personal appearance Board, the burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration. In view of the foregoing, 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: 1 April 2009 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA 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 1 No change 4 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: None ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080010729 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages