PART II - APPLICATION DATA (Note: Part I deleted under the Privacy Act on Reading Room copy) 1. Character of Discharge: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 2. Date of discharge (or REFRAD): 020114 3. Authority for separation: a. Regulation: Chapter 10, AR 635-200 b. Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial 4. Prior review(s): NONE PART III - SERVICE HISTORY SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review 1. Service data: 2. Awards and decorations: ARCOM (2ndAwd) a. Period entered for: 3 Years AAM b. Entry date: 990513 GCMDL c. Age: 23 Years DOB: 750910 HSM d. Educational level: HS Grad ASR e. Aptitude area score: GT: 94 3. Highest grade achieved: f. Length of Service: E4 2 Year(s) 6 Month(s) 14 Day(s) 4. Performance evaluations: NONE PART III - SERVICE HISTORY SECTION A - Period of Service Under Review - Continued 5. Periods of unauthorized absence: Status Inclusive dates AWOL 000331-000405; 001118-001121; 010211-010319; Mil conf 0 Civil conf 0 Other 0 6. Nonjudicial punishment: Date Offense(s) Art.15 NIF (See unit commander’s recommendation for discharge). Art.15 NIF Art.15 NIF 7. Court-Martial data: NONE a. SCM: Date Offense(s) b. SPCM: Date Offense(s) c. GCM: Date Offense(s) 8. Remarks: NONE SECTION B - Prior Service Data Other discharge(s): Service From To Type Discharge RA 941104 970622 Honorable RA 970623 990513 Honorable PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW SECTION A-ANALYST’S ASSESSMENT l. Facts and Circumstances: a. The evidence of record shows that on 27 March 2001, the applicant was charged with four specifications of AWOL, from (000331-000406); (001118-001122); (010103-010105;) and (010211-010320). On 30 March 2001, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter l0, 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 13 December 2002, 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. On 14 January 2002, the applicant was discharged. At the time of discharge, the applicant had completed 2 years, 6 months, and 14 days of active military service and accrued 49 days of lost time in the period under review and had a total of 7 years, and 24 days of active military service. 2. Legal/Regulatory Basis for Separation Action: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter l0 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 requests 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. SECTION B-APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS 1. Issue(s) of propriety and/or equity submitted by applicant or counsel. As stated on applicant’s DD Form 293. 2. Exhibit(s) submitted: A-1: DD Form 293, dated 020710. A-2: Counsel Issues: NONE B-l: Other Documents: NONE PART IV - PREHEARING REVIEW (CONTINUED) SECTION C - Medical and/or Legal Advisory Opinion Referred to ( ) Medical Advisor ( ) Legal Advisor a. Medical prehearing comments (if applicable): b. Legal prehearing comments (if applicable): PART V - SUMMARY OF HEARING SECTION A-Attendees and exhibits 1. Review/hearing information: a. Type requested: ( ) Records review ( X ) Hearing b. Type Held: ( )Records review ( X ) Hearing ( ) Tender Offer c. Review/hearing location and date: Washington, DC on 18 November 2002. d. Appearance by: Applicant ( X ) Yes ( ) No Counsel ( ) Yes ( X ) No e. Applicant testified: ( X ) Yes ( ) No f. Counsel presentation: ( ) Yes ( X ) No g. Witness(es) testified: ( ) Yes ( X ) No 2. Exhibit(s) submitted at hearing: four issues and one (1) document. PART VI - ISSUES AND FINDINGS 1. a. Applicant's issue(s) of propriety and/or equity: ( X ) Same as those listed on DD Form 293 and Part IV, Section A of this case report and directive. ( ) Revised issue(s) furnished in writing by applicant as follows: ( ) Additional issue(s) identified during review/hearing as follows: b. Request: ( X ) Recharacterization ( X ) Change of Reason 2. Finding(s), conclusion(s), and reason(s) for the Board's decision(s) on issues of propriety and/or equity: a. Propriety: The applicant has not submitted an issue of propriety and the ADRB has not otherwise relied upon an issue of propriety to change the discharge. b. Equity: The parenthetical number(s) below correspond(s) to the issue number(s) on the DD Form 293, or in Part VI, Paragraph 1, above. (1), (2), (3) and (4). The issues are rejected. The Board carefully examined the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and heard his testimony. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses. 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 Board noted that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and 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 Board 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 was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. Furthermore, the Board found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the applicant’s chain of command. Further, a change to the RE Code does not fall within the purview of this Board. The Board noted that at the time of separation the applicant was properly assigned an RE Code of “4.” RE Code “4” simply means that the applicant was discharged with a non-waiveable disqualification and is not eligible for reenlistment. The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. 3. Response(s) to item(s) not addressed as decisional issue(s): NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION A - Conclusions/Decisions/Vote 1. Board conclusion(s): The discharge was: ( X ) Proper. ( ) Improper as to characterization. Change characterization to                                     . ( ) Improper as to reason. Change reason to                         under                      . ( X ) Equitable. ( ) Inequitable as to characterization. Change characterization to                               . ( ) Inequitable as to reason. Change reason to                        under                                 . ( ) Both proper and equitable, but characterization/reason for separation cited was an administrative/clerical error and should be changed to                      under                         . 2. Voting record: Change No Change Reason 0 5 Characterization 0 5 The names and votes of the members of the Board are recorded in Part IX of this document and can be obtained by writing to the address below. The request must contain the CASE NO. located in the upper right corner of this document. Department of the Army Review Boards Agency ATTN: Promulgation Team 1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, 2nd Floor Arlington, VA 22202-4508 3. Minority views: NONE PART VII - BOARD ACTION SECTION B - Verification and Authentication Case report reviewed and verified                            MR. RON WILLIAMS Case Reviewing Official PART VIII - DIRECTIVE/CERTIFICATION SECTION A - DIRECTIVE NONE SECTION B - CERTIFICATION Approval Authority: SPURGEON A. MOORE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: JOHN F. LONG Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder EXHIBITS: A - Application for review of discharge C - Other B - Material submitted by applicant INDEX RECORD: AR Number: 2002076121 INDEX NUMBERS: A9311 Date of Review: 021118 A9307 Character of Service: UD A9219 Date of Discharge: 020114 A9217 Authority: AR 635-200 C10 A0100 Reason: A7100 Results of Board Action/ Vote/Affirmation: NC 5-0 A PART IX - VOTING RECORD Name  Reason Characterization CHANGE NC HON UHC NC UNCHAR 1. Mbr      X          X     2. Mbr      X          X     3. Mbr      X          X     4. Mbr      X          X     5. Mbr      X          X