Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2011/10/07 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he has been affected by his discharge for over 13 years. He realizes the bad mistake he made at age 21. He wants to have his character of service upgraded because he now has two sons who are enlisting in the Army and his wife is a commissioned officer at the grade of 2LT and a registered nurse at Fort Bragg. He would like to correct his mistake so that he could be a better example for his sons. He has been active with his community since his discharge, mostly by coaching with recreational football at Atlanta and Fort Sam Houston. He also served as an elementary school coach at Fort Gordon. He concludes that all he really wants is a second change to correct his mistake. 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: 000225 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Co A, 1st Bn, 9th Cav Regt, Fort Hood, TX Time Lost: AWOL: (980819-981101) for 75 days (surrendered to military authorities) Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 20 Current ENL Date: 970214 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 09 Mos, 28 Days ????? Total Service: 04 Yrs, 10 Mos, 10 Days Includes Involuntary Excess Leave: (981106-000225) for 477 days Previous Discharges: USAR (941202-950131) / NA RA (950201-970213) / HD Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11M (Fighting Veh. Infantryman) GT: 99 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM; ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The available evidence of record shows that on 18 September 1998, the unit commander preferred a charge against the applicant for being absent without leave beginning 19 August 1998. There are no further specific facts and circumstances leading to the applicant's discharge from the Army in the available records. 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. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by 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., in lieu of trial by court-martial) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3." The record also indicates that on 23 February 2000, Department of the Army, Headquarters, U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, Fort Knox, Kentucky, Orders 054-0167, discharged the applicant from the United States Army, effective 25 February 2000 (VOCG), pursuant to AR 635-200. 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 the entire applicant’s available military records and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The only pertinent evidence available for review regarding the applicant's discharge is the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, which was not authenticated by the applicant. The DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. Procedurally, the applicant was required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily, and in writing, request 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. In the absence of information to the contrary, 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. It also noted the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant would have been aware of it prior to requesting discharge. Furthermore, the analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Therefore, based on the available evidence, the analyst presumes government regularity in the discharge process and concludes that it appears 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: 6 April 2012 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated 27 September 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. Moreover, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant was incorrectly assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3”. The Board voted to correct block 27, reentry code to read “4,” as it was approved by the separation authority. IX. Board Decision Board Vote: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) X. Board Action Directed Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature Approval Authority: EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board BONITA E. TROTMAN Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army Secretary Recorder 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 AR20110020256 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages