Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2010/11/12 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states: "An upgrade is needed so I can have a better chance at getting a job and would like to get some VA to continue getting help." 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: 100216 Discharge Received: Date: 100308 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: B Co, 2/27th Inf, Schofield Barracks, HI Time Lost: Confinement military authority for 56 days (100107-100303). Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 091201, Disrespectful in language and deportment towards a noncommissioned officer x 2 (090714 and 090907), reduction to E1; forfeiture of $699.00 pay per month for two months; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 24 Current ENL Date: 080221 Current ENL Term: 05 Years 19 Weeks Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 10 Mos, 21 Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 10 Mos, 21 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B10/Infantryman GT: 100 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Hawaii, Southwest Asia Combat: Iraq (081020-091020) Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-w/CS, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Calhoun, GA Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 4 February 2010, the applicant was charged with failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (100105), assault on a First Sergeant (100105), disobeying a lawful order from a First Sergeant (100105), resisting apprehension (100105), and kicking a Mr. E.S. on his person (100105). On 11 February 2010, 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 he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits. The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf. The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 23 February 2010, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. The applicant's record contains a Military Police Report, dated 5 January 2010. 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 chehave 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issues, and the 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 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 about wanting a upgrade of his discharge so he can have a better chance at getting a job and getting help from VA. However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Furthermore, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include 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 contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined 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: 13 July 2011 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA 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 AR20100027745 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 pages