Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2011/02/28 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he was under pressure to reenlist and needed to return from Korea because of his family problem that needed to be solved. He had done time for the original enlistment and was pressured to reenlist. 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: 980603 Discharge Received: Date: 980710 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: HQ & HQ Company, 1st Battalion, 67th Armor, Fort Hood, TX Time Lost: AWOL x 1 from (980209-980325) for 45 days. The applicant surrendered to the military authorities at Fort Hood, TX and was transferred to Fort Sill, OK 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: 22 Current ENL Date: Reenl/970205 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 3 Mos, 19 Days The computation includes 99 days of excess leave from (980403-980710) Total Service: 3 Yrs, 8 Mos, 25 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 940831-970204/HD Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 77F10 Petroleum Supply Spec GT: 87 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Korea (960422-970422) Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM, GCMDL, NDSM, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 31 March 1998, the applicant was charged with AWOL from (980209-980326). On 2 April 1998, 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 11 June 1998, 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 submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which 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 the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. The analyst noted the applicant's issue that he was under pressure to reenlist and needed to return from Korea because of his family problem that needed to be solved. The analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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. Further, while the applicant may believe that his family problems at home was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from his problems through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. The applicant further contends that he is in dire need of mental and physical help and does not have a job. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include medical and educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should continue to contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. Additionally, 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: 23 September 2011 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 149 dated 18 February 2011 in lieu of a DD Form 293. 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 AR20110004080 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages