Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/04/21 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See 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: Date: 060314 Discharge Received: Date: 060531 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: 39th AG BN, Ft Benning, GA Time Lost: AWOLx1 for 192 days (050806-060214) surrendered 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: 21 Current ENL Date: 050707 Current ENL Term: 3 Years 19 weeks Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 04Mos, 15Days ????? Total Service: 00 Yrs, 04Mos, 15Days Includes 105 days of excess leave (060216-060531) Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E1 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: NIF EDU: GED Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: North Las Vegas, NV Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 16 February 2006, the applicant was charged with being AWOL (060130-061212). On 16 February 2006, 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 the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 28 April 2006, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 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 that the characterization of service granted is too harsh and as a result inequitable. The analyst noted that the applicant was in entry-level status when he returned from a period of AWOL (i.e., he had completed less than 180 days of continuous active duty). The applicant was charged with AWOL and while still in an entry-level status voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In essence the applicant’s separation action was initiated while the applicant was in an entry-level status and the command had the option to characterize the service under other than honorable conditions or to describe it as uncharacterized. Furthermore, the analyst note the applicant's explanation for his action; however, the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. Notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant’s discharge, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s service should now be described as uncharacterized. However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 29 January 2010 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: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090008155 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages