Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/09/21 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, "I feel that my discharge was inequitable since it does not reflect my otherwise outstanding and dedicated service in the US Army. Furthermore, it does not reflect the person I am today and the commnitment I have to serving my country. I feel that an upgrade in my discharge would benefit my family's and my own future." 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: 020123 Discharge Received: Date: 020222 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: 977th MP Co, Ft Riley, KS Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 010619, assault on PVT M by striking him repeatedly with a closed fist in the face (010602); extra duty for a period of 8 days, restriction for 6 days (CG). 010130, remission of punishment, reduction to the grade of E2 and extra duty for 7 days, suspended until 010222. Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 18 Current ENL Date: 010629 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 08Mos, 13Days ????? Total Service: 2 Yrs, 08Mos, 13Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 990610-010628 Concurrent Service Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 63B10 Light Wheeled Mech GT: 90 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant states he has been working for Lier Siegler Services for almost five years, has deployed to Iraq in support of OIF and continues to serve in a civilian capacity. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 23 January 2002, the applicant was charged with stealing two sweatpants, four shirts and one sweat shirt property of AAFES on 011015. On 30 January 2002 , 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 commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 11 February 2002, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. The record also contains a MP Report dated 010602 citing the applicant as the Subject for Assault consummated by battery. 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, under honorable conditions 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 and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of the former Soldier’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. The analyst acknowledges the applicant's inservice and post-service accomplishments attached to the application. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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: 21 July 2010 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: Sefl-authored statement (1 page), DD Form 214, Certificate of Training for UP-Armored HMMWV (1 page), Certificate of Promotion to Specialist (1 page), Certificate of Achievement/Appreciation (4 pages), Individual Training Record (1 page). 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 0 No change 5 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: NA 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 AR20090016331 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 pages