IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  17 December 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130006994 


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 upgrade of her uncharacterized discharge.

2.  The applicant states that she was informed her discharge could be upgraded 6 months after she was discharged.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 12 March 2007 for a period of 8 years.  She was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT) on 21 March 2007.

2.  On 8 November 2007, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 September 2007 to
31 October 2007.

3.  On 8 November 2007, the first sergeant (1SG), U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Sill, OK, interviewed the applicant.

   a.  The applicant indicated she went AWOL due to family issues:  her child became very ill while she was in basic training; she requested leave, but it was denied; she left out of concern for her child; and the child was (then) still awaiting surgery.
   b.  The 1SG recommended an uncharacterized discharge.

4.  On 9 November 2007, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and she voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant's request for discharge states she was not subjected to coercion with respect to her request for discharge.

   a.  She acknowledged that she understood the elements of the offense charged and that she was guilty of the charge against her, or of (a) lesser included offense(s) therein contained, which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  She added that she did not desire further rehabilitation because she had no desire to perform further military service.

   b.  She was advised that she might be discharged under conditions other than honorable, that she might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that she might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, that she might be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws, and that she might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if she was given an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

	c.  She was also advised that she could submit any statements she desired in her own behalf; however, she declined to do so.

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

5.  The applicant's company commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for discharge with uncharacterized service.

6.  The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed separation with an uncharacterized discharge.

7.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty) shows she was discharged on 28 January 2008 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial with uncharacterized service.

   a.  She completed 8 months and 22 days of net active service.

   b.  Item 29 (Dates of Time Lost During This Period) shows she had time lost from 15 September 2007 through 31 October 2007.
8.  On 9 September 2011, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable.  Accordingly, the applicant's request for upgrade of her discharge was denied.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 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.  When characterization of service under other than honorable conditions is not warranted for a Soldier in entry-level status, service will be uncharacterized.

	b.  Chapter 3 (Character of Service/Description of Service):

    	(1)  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.  Only the honorable characterization may be awarded to a Soldier upon completion of his/her period of enlistment or period for which called or ordered to active duty or active duty for training, or where required under specific reason for separation, unless an entry-level status separation (uncharacterized) is warranted;

    	(2)  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; and

    	(3)  paragraph 3-9, provides that a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status.

	c.  Section II (Terms) of the glossary states that entry-level status for Reserve Soldiers begins upon enlistment in the USAR and, for Soldiers ordered to IADT for one continuous period, it terminates 180 days after beginning training.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her uncharacterized discharge should be upgraded because she was informed that it could be upgraded 6 months after her discharge.

2.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge were improper or inequitable.

3.  Records show the applicant was ordered to IADT on 21 March 2007 and that she went AWOL on 15 September 2007.

   a.  A calculation of this period of service shows the following:

	2007  09  15   date departed AWOL
         - 2007  03  21   date ordered to IADT
         =    00  05  24   total net active service (174 days)

   b.  Thus, she was in an entry-level status when she went AWOL, which resulted in the offense for which she was charged.  Upon return to military control, she acknowledged her guilt and voluntarily requested discharge.

4.  The applicant was AWOL for a total of 47 days and she elected to request discharge in lieu of being court-martialed.  Thus, the applicant's service during the period under review did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and she is not entitled to an honorable or an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

5.  The evidence of record shows that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate when a Soldier is discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  However, it also shows when a characterization of service under other than honorable conditions is not warranted for a Soldier in entry-level status the service will be uncharacterized.

6.  An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service.  It merely means the Soldier has not served on active duty long enough for his or her character of service to be rated.

7.  The applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, 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.  Considering all the facts of the case, the reason for her separation and characterization of her service were appropriate and equitable.

8.  Therefore, there is an insufficient basis for granting the 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)                                         AR20130006994



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130006994



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1