Application Receipt Date: 060313 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293, with attachments. The applicant has requested an upgrade due to an injury he received after his discharge from active duty service. He states that he is unemployed and has no health insurance coverage and needs Veterans Administration treatment in order to treat his injury. 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: 000406 Discharge Received: Date: 000524 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Company B, 1st Battalion, 44th Air Defense Artillery, Fort Hood, Texas 76544 Time Lost: AWOL 186 days/The soldier surrendered to military authorities at Fort Wainwright, Alaska Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 790814 Current ENL Date: 980324 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 2 Mos, 00 Days Entry date on DD-214 is incorrect. Total Service: 2 Yrs, 2 Mos, 00 Days Includes 160 days of excess leave from (991217-000524). Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E1 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 123 EDU: GED Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None were submitted. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 14 December 1999, the applicant was charged with AWOL (990605-991207). On 16 December 1999, 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 and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 3 May 2000, 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 at any time after the charges are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court martial. 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, the analyst recommend to the Board that the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his characterization of service be denied. The applicant’s contention is noted; however, the analyst did not find said contention sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. 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: 24 January 2007 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: N/A Witnesses/Observers: N/A Exhibits Submitted: N/A 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 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 not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. John Zangas, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: None RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: ESMERALDA G. PROCTOR DATE: 26 January 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060003761 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages