BOARD DATE:	  10 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110020581 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests a change of her narrative reason for her separation and an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant states while assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia, she experienced difficulties in her family life and endangerment of her children.  She was instructed by her chain of command to find a home and vehicle so that she could bring her children to her duty station and she did so.

	a.  One afternoon while she was off duty she went home to check on her children and her commander sent Soldiers to look for her.  She returned to the unit and received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 that included confinement and reduction to private (PVT)/pay grade E-1.

	b.  The applicant states numerous Inspector General complaints had been filed against the commander, including some that were filed by her.  She also states the commander initiated a campaign against her that included verbal comments of degradation and extra duty which limited her ability to see her children.

	c.  The applicant acknowledges that she was wrong for leaving her unit in an unauthorized status.  She adds that when she returned to her unit, an officer of the Judge Advocate General Corps advised her she would receive an early release from the Army.  She was not told she would receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of her request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 22 September 2006 for a period of 8 years.  She was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT) on
28 September 2006 for a period of 29 weeks or completion of basic and advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) (Signal Support Systems Specialist).

2.  Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Actions), both dated 4 June 2007, show the applicant's duty status was changed:

* from present for duty (PDY) to absent without leave (AWOL), effective 
1 June 2007
* from AWOL to PDY, effective 3 June 2007

3.  On 10 July 2008, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 86, for being absent from her unit from 9 June 2007 to 3 July 2008.

4.  On 10 July 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  The applicant's request for discharge states she was not subjected to coercion with respect to her request for discharge.

	a.  She was advised that she might be discharged under other than honorable conditions, that she might:

* be deprived of many or all Army benefits
* be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration
* be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws
* expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if she was issued an Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate

	b.  She was also advised that she could submit any statements she desired in her own behalf.

	 	(1)  The applicant indicated that she would submit a statement.
	 	(2)	 In her statement the applicant acknowledged going AWOL while attending AIT.  She stated the reason was because she experienced serious family issues involving her children and she went to pick her children up.  She went AWOL because she had to take care of their physical and mental well-being.  She added "I felt I was unable to take care of (her children) at AIT.  I had been confined to post and was unable to care for their needs."

	c.  The applicant and her legal counsel placed their signatures on the document.

5.  On 18 August 2008, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions.  He also directed the applicant be reduced to PVT (E-1).

6.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows she was discharged on 5 September 2008 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with her service characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  She completed 10 months and 12 days of net active service.  It also shows in:

	a.  item 18 (Remarks) [in part] that she did not complete her first full term of service; and

	b.  item 29 (Dates of Time Lost During This Period) that she had lost time from 1 through 2 June 2007 and from 9 June 2007 through 2 July 2008.

7.  A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal any evidence that she completed MOS training or that she was awarded an MOS.

8.  On 7 October 2009, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's case and determined her discharge was proper and equitable. Accordingly, her request was denied and she was notified of the ADRB's decision.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for 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.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

   c.  Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends the reason for her separation action should be changed and her discharge should be upgraded because she was experiencing family difficulties when she went AWOL and she was not properly advised of the type of discharge and character of service she would receive.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  It also shows the applicant was advised that she might be discharged under other than honorable conditions.  Thus, the evidence of record refutes the applicant's contentions.

3.  The applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was voluntary and administratively correct.  All requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Moreover, the offense that led to her discharge outweighs her overall record of service.  Considering all the facts of the case, the reason for her discharge and characterization of service directed for the period of service under review was appropriate and equitable.

4.  Records show the applicant had nearly 13 months of time lost and she failed to complete the training required for award of an MOS, which was the reason the applicant was ordered to IADT.  Thus, the applicant's service during the period under review clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and she is not entitled to an honorable discharge.  Moreover, the applicant's overall quality of service was not satisfactory and she is not entitled to a general discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X_  ____X____  ____X____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




      _______ _X   _______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110020581



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110020581



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1