Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2010/04/24 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he has seen the consequences of his actions and regrets to the fullest what he did. He is now a security officer and has enrolled into the police academy. He needs a general discharge and eventually an honorable to be promoted in his field of work. 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 100119 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: HQ & HQ Company, 1st Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Carson, CO 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: 22 Current ENL Date: Reenl/081002 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 3 Mos, 18 Days ????? Total Service: 3 Yrs, 3 Mos, 25 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 060925-081001/HD Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 92Y10 Unit Supply Spec GT: 104 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Southwest Asia Combat: Iraq (071203-090215) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWTSM, ICMDLw/CS, ASR, OSR, VUA V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states in his issue that he is a security officer and submitted a copy of his registration. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 20 October 2009, the applicant was charged with failing to go to his appointed place of duty x 6 from (090828), (090826), (090803), (090618), (090616), (090306), and without proper authority sold eight improved outer tactical vests of a value of about $500.00 or more, the property of the United States Army on or about (090911), and stole eight improved outer tactical vests of a value of about $500.00 or more, the property of the United States Army on or about (090911). On 16 December 2009, 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, however, the defense counsel submitted a statement on behalf of the applicant. On 30 December 2009, 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 record contains a Military Police Report in reference to the applicant's offense of wrongful sale of military property, dated 9 September 2009. 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, the issue and document submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which 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 the applicant was aware of it prior to requesting discharge. The analyst noted the applicant's issue that he has seen the consequences of his actions and regrets to the fullest what he did. He is now a security officer and has enrolled into the police academy and needs a general discharge and eventually an honorable to be promoted in his field of work. The analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the accomplishment outlined in his application and the supporting document with his application. The analyst considered the applicant’s quality of service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge. 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: 2 February 2011 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 19 April 2010 and a copy of his security guard registration, which expires 14 April 2011. 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: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change 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 AR20100016011 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages