IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015697 


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 in the reason and authority for his discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect,

   a.  He wants the reason and authority on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) corrected to properly reflect the Army Discharge Review Board's (ADRB) upgrade of his characterization of service before it is viewed by police departments for employment.
   
   b.  It would be equitable to correct the reason and authority on his DD Form 214.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his ADRB decisional document.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 10 July 2003.  He was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 19K (Armor Crewman).

2.  The applicant's Enlisted Record Brief shows in Section III (Service Data) that he entered active duty in the rank of private (PV2)/E-2 and this was the highest rank he held while serving on active duty.  His record also shows he earned several personal and service awards throughout his service.

3.  The applicant's record does not include a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation processing.  However, it does include a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that was authenticated by the applicant on the date of his discharge, which was 25 May 2005.  The DD Form 214 identifies the authority and reason for the applicant's discharge, which shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial, and that he received an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

4.  The DD Form 214 shows he was discharged in the rank of private (PVT)/E-1 and he completed 1 year, 10 months, and 16 days of creditable active service.   Item 26 (Separation Code) contains the entry "KFS" and item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) contains the entry "In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial." 

5.  On 5 May 2014, the ADRB, after carefully examining the applicant's record of service, hearing his testimony, and notwithstanding the examiner's discussion and recommendation, the ADRB determined the applicant's testimony was credible and the circumstances surrounding his discharge to include his combat service, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  The ADRB determined the characterization of the applicant's discharge was too harsh and as a result his discharge was inequitable.  Accordingly the ADRB voted to grant relief by upgrading his UOTHC discharge to a general discharge (GD), with restoration of his rank/grade to PV2/E-2.  However, the ADRB determined the reason and authority for his discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.

6.  On 3 June 2014, he was issued a DD Form 214 as a result of the ADRB's decision.  Item 24 (Character of Service) shows he was issued a GD and item 28 includes the entry "IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL."

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

	a.  Chapter 10 states 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 UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  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.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It states, in pertinent part, that the SPD code KFS is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, by reason of in lieu of trial by court martial.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his narrative reason for separation should be corrected based on the ADRB's decision to upgrade his UOTHC discharge to a GD.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the ADRB determined the applicant's UOTHC discharge was too harsh and voted to upgrade it to a general discharge. However, the ADRB determined the applicant's narrative reason for separation and the separation authority were both proper and equitable and voted not to change them.

3.  The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge.  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 would have admitted guilt and waived his opportunity to appear before a court-martial.

4.  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.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis upon which to grant the requested relief in this case and the applicant's request should be denied.



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)                                         AR20140015697



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015697



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1