Application Receipt Date: 060126 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293 and supporting documents. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 020122 Discharge Received: Date: 020207 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 30th AG Battalion, Fort Benning, GA Time Lost: AWOL 44 days (000610-000723), applicant surrendered to military authority. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 820330 Current ENL Date: 000417 Current ENL Term: NIF Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 08Mos, 07Days (Includes 559 days of excess leave) Total Service: 01 Yrs, 08Mos, 07Days ????? Previous Discharges: ARNG-000402-000416/NA Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 101 EDU: NIF Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: States he is currently a correctional officer in Boscawen, NH, and that he is enrolling in a criminal justice program at the [redacted college] in Concord, NH and that he should graduate with his bachelor degree in August of 2007. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with going AWOL from 10 June 2000 to 23 July 2000. On 28 July 2000, 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. On 22 January 2002, the unit commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 25 January 2002, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and directed that he be reduced to private E1. 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 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 independent evidence he submitted, it is recommended that the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his characterization of service be denied. 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. 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 that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. The reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 061206 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change No change (Character) Change No change (Reason) (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation The Board carefully examined the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review. The Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the characterization of service granted is inequitable. The Board 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 command had the option to characterize his service under other than honorable conditions or to describe his service as uncharacterized. Notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant’s discharge, after carefully examining the applicant’s record of service and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board concluded that the applicant’s service should now be described as uncharacterized. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief by changing the description of the applicant’s service to uncharacterized. The Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Eric S. Moore, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 061208 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060001392 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages