IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  20 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120005218 


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 his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states he needs an upgrade so he can get a contracting job.  He did his job for the short time he was in, but had problems readjusting when he came back from Iraq.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military personnel records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 January 2006 for a period of 4 years.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty 92A (Automated Logistical Specialist).  He reenlisted on 19 October 2007 for a period of 6 years.  He served in Iraq from 25 August 2006 to 11 November 2007.

2.  His Enlisted Record Brief indicates he was reduced to private/pay grade E-1 on 10 July 2008.  There are no details concerning this reduction in his official military personnel file.

3.  On 6 October 2008, court-martial charges were preferred against him for:

* being absent without leave (AWOL) from 28 August to 5 September 2008
* being AWOL from 6 - 9 September 2008
* failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 22 August 2008
* placing a weapon (a sharpened stick) on a commissioned officer's keyboard on 3 October 2008
* being incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties on 3 October 2008, as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor

4.  On 8 October 2008, he voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by 
court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations).  He acknowledged he understood the elements of the offense he was being charged with and that he was:

* making the request of his own free will
* guilty of the offense with which he was charged
* afforded the opportunity to speak with counsel prior to making this request
* advised he could be furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge 

5.  In addition, he acknowledged he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if an under other than honorable conditions discharge was issued to him.  He also acknowledged he understood he:

* would be deprived of many or all Army benefits
* may be ineligible for many or all Department of Veterans Affairs benefits
* may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws

6.  On 9 October 2008, the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He directed the applicant be separated under other than honorable conditions.

7.  On 10 October 2008, he was discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200.  He received an under other than honorable conditions discharge for this period of service.

8.  On 20 April 2011, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed and denied the applicant's request for discharge upgrade.  The ADRB determined his discharge was proper and equitable and that the discharge was properly characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  
	a.  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 discharge 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.  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.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

   c.  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.  He contends he couldn't adjust after returning from Iraq.  However, the evidence shows his acts of indiscipline did not start until almost a year after his return.  There is no evidence of him being unable to adjust right after he returned from Iraq.

2.  The applicant's voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  There is no evidence of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized his rights.

4.  His infractions of discipline occurred in a little over a one-month period.  He was clearly showing a pattern of misconduct that likely would have continued.  Therefore, his service was unsatisfactory, and there is insufficient substantive evidence on which to base an upgrade of his discharge to either an honorable discharge or 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)                                         AR20120005218



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120005218



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1