Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2010/01/19 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he is requesting an upgrade because he is doing well in life and wants to do better. He has moved on with his life and supporting his family. He honors the military and still put the Army down on his applications because he cherish the time he was there. He wants a better paying job because his wife is sick with heart trouble and he is the only source of income now. He doesn't need benefits, he just need an honorable status. He has established a remarkable career for himself. If he could go back in he would, he loved his job and did ask to stay, but was turned down. 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: 031205 Discharge Received: Date: 040115 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Bravo Battery, 1st Battalion, 39th Field Artillery, Fort Stewart, GA Time Lost: AWOL x 1 from (020627-030930) for a total of 461 days. The applicant was apprehended by the civilian authorities at Eudora, AR and was transferred to Fort Stewart, GA. 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: 24 Current ENL Date: 000425 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 5 Mos, 16 Days The net active service this period on the DD Form 214, item 12c is incorrect; should be as annotated above. Total Service: 2 Yrs, 5 Mos, 16 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 13M10 MLRS Crewmember GT: 95 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant submitted 15 Certificates of Completion in reference to various courses he had taken and Completed from different schools and agencies, to include the Southern Arkansas University Tech. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 4 November 2003, the applicant was charged with AWOL from (020627-030930). On 5 November 2003, 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 11 December 2003, the separation authority approved the discharge 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, and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The evidence of record shows 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 it prior to requesting discharge. The analyst noted the applicant's issue that he is requesting an upgrade because he is doing well in life and wants to do better. He has moved on with his life, supporting his family and wants a better paying job because his wife is sick with heart trouble and he is the only source of income now. The analyst acknowledges the applicant’s letter and other documents with his application outlining his successful accomplishments since separation from active duty. The applicant is to be commended for his efforts. However, these accomplishments do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief. Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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: 1 October 2010 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 17 December 2009, 15 Certificates of Completion in reference to various courses he had taken and Completed from different schools and agencies, to include the Southern Arkansas University Tech. 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 0 No change 5 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: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change 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 AR20100006976 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages