Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/08/07 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he requests an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable. He relates that for 14 years of service to be forgotten is a concern. Also he desires VA benefits and contends the officers made it seem if he went to court he would lose and face a prison sentence of possibly 14 years. 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: 010502 Discharge Received: Date: 010523 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: HHC, 2-72nd AR Regt, APO AP 96224 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 32 Current ENL Date: 991110 Current ENL Term: 06 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 06Mos, 14Days ????? Total Service: 14 Yrs, 01Mos, 23Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-870331-890802/HD RA-890803-941204/HD RA-941205-991109/HD Highest Grade: E-7 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 19D10 Cavalry Scout GT: 111 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Germany/Korea/SouthWest Asia/Kuwait (970201-970630) Combat: Saudi Arabia (910107-910513) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-3, AAM-3, AGM-3, NDSM, SWASM-W/3 BSS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-3, KLM-SA, KLM-KUWAIT V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Harker Heights, TX Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 20 April 2001, the applicant was charged with violating a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully exceeding the USFK Commissary ration policy monthly dollar amount of $350 x 7 (000801-000831), (000901-000931), (001001-001031), (001101-001130), (001201-001231), (010101-010131), and (010201-010228). On 25 April 2001, 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 chain of command recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 7 May 2001, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. The applicant's record contains a CID Report of Investigation, dated 9 March 2001. 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and document submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that 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 that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. By his misconduct (wrongfully exceeding the USFK Commissary ration policy monthly dollar amount of $350 x 7), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Further, after 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 analyst concluded that the discrediting entries in the applicant's record were not outweighed by service of sufficient merit to warrant a change to the discharge under review. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the 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. The analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Therefore, 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: 9 June 2010 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted a Change of Address Letter, dated (090921). 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 2 No change 3 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: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None 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 AR20090013569 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages