Application Receipt Date: 060925 Prior Review Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 submitted by the Applicant 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: 950315 Discharge Received: Date: 951017 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: 501st Forward Support Battalion, 1st Armored Division, APO AE 09111 Time Lost: NONE Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NA Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NA Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 700704 Current ENL Date: 921105 Current ENL Term: 4 Years Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 11Mos, 13Days Total Service: 8 Yrs, 2Mos, 14Days Previous Discharges: USAR 880130-890522/NA RA 890523-921105/HD Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 63J10/QM and Chem Equip Repr GT: 91 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Germany Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM -3, NDSM, ASR, OSR-2 V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 8 October 1995, 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. The memorandum requesting discharge in lieu of court-martial signed by the applicant lists three charges: Article 81, conspiracy; Article 92, failure to obey regulation; and Article 121, larceny. The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature. His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS (i.e., for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3." 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 issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 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. 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 that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. Furthermore, at the time of discharge the applicant was assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.” If the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes. 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: 071213 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 0 No change 5 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - Reason (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation Case report reviewed and verified by: TO, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: Other: RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder