IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 January 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120012249 


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 that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was the assistant in the arms room.  Miscellaneous items from the arms room were missing and he was wrongly accused of theft.  The company commander aggressively questioned two other Soldiers and himself.  He was threatened and refused command sponsorship and he was denied leave.  The company commander insisted that one of the three knew about the missing items.  He was told that if he confessed he would receive a minor slap on the wrist and that he would not receive an Article 15.  He adds that he had not slept in days and he was so overwhelmed that he confessed to the theft.  At that point the company commander proceeded to have him court-martialed.  Therefore, he believes his confession was coerced.  He adds that he did not steal the items; he was a model Soldier.  He chose to take the chapter in lieu of court-martial.  He could not cope with the idea of spending time in prison for something he did not do and also being separated from his family any longer.  He further adds that since his discharge he’s divorced and he has had trouble gaining good employment and obtaining his GI Bill.  He continues to be a model citizen; he works full time and gives back whenever he can.  He has no prior criminal record and asks that his status be changed.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation.



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board.  This case is being considered using Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report and Directive.

2.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 October 2008.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 92F (Petroleum Supply Specialist).  The highest rank he achieved was specialist/E-4.

3.  On 28 July 2010, court-martial charges were preferred against him for making a false official statement and stealing four laser range finders, military property of a value of greater than $500.00.  He was charged with stealing four Bushnell iCites, twelve 30 round magazines, eight M4 bipods, six M4 guard rails, five multiple magazine holders, one PEQ-15 pressure switch, and ten Duracell batteries, military property of a value greater than $500.00, the property of the United States. 

4.  On 3 January 2011, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily in writing requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of court-martial.  In his request the applicant admitted guilt to the offense.  He acknowledged that he understood he could receive an UOTHC discharge and that he might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge.  

5.  On the same day, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service, reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade and directed that he be issued a UOTHC discharge.  

6.  On 4 February 2011, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service –in lieu of court-martial with a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.  He had completed 2 years, 
3 months, and 6 days of net active service.

7.  On 27 September 2011, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in 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 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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

     a. 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.

      b.  Paragraph 3-7b states 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's contentions were carefully considered and found to be insufficient in merit.  There is no evidence and the applicant did not present any evidence that shows his discharge was unjust and or unfair.

2.  It appears that he was charged with the commission of offense(s) punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant is presumed to have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, he admitted guilt and waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial.  It is also presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Furthermore, in the absence of evidence showing otherwise, it must be presumed his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

3.  The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) does not grant requests for the upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for veterans' benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.  The granting of veterans' benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR and any questions regarding eligibility for health care and other benefits should be addressed to the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20120012249



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120012249



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1