Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/05/10	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, the following issues are the reasons he believes his discharge should be upgraded to Honorable.  The applicant contends the presumption of regularity that might normally permit the assumption that the Army acted correctly in characterizing his service as less than honorable does not apply to his case because of the evidence he has submitted.  The applicant provides the following issues for the Board's consideration:

1.  Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge.  He is diligently seeking a promotion within his current field as a Correctional Peace Officer or with another department and his current level of discharge is overshadowing his accomplishments.

2.  He has been a good citizen since discharge.  He has gone to college and received certifications in fire fighting, emergency medicine, and correctional law enforcement.  He has been a correctional officer for nearly seven years and is married with three children and trying to make a better life for his family, while continuing to serve his state and country domestically.

3.  His record of AWOL/UA is the only offense.  He tried to obtain a hardship leave of absence to care for his father who was diagnosed with cancer and degenerative disk disease.  He was unable to obtain work and was losing his house.  He needed someone to help him in his most dire of circumstances, and the applicant was the only one he could rely upon.  His father has since deceased.

4.  Personal problems impaired his ability to serve as noted above.

5.  He tried to serve and wanted to, but just couldn’t or wasn’t able to.  Once his obligation to his family was fulfilled, he went back to the service of his own accord.  He had every intention of fulfilling his obligation at the time, but was told that he would have to start all over and then offered the option of an 0TH discharge.  He agreed and signed the required paperwork, but his youth and immaturity didn’t allow him to fully understand the implications of such a discharge.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 010531
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 020426   Chapter: 10       AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: B Company, 1/222 Aviation Regiment, 8th Transportation Brigade, Fort Eustis, VA 

Time Lost: AWOL x 1 for a total of 282 days (000811 - 010522); returned to unit.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 



IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 000610    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	1  Yrs, 1  Mos, 2  Days ?????
Total Service:  		1  Yrs, 1  Mos, 2 Days Excess leave 330 days (010601 - 020426)
Previous Discharges: 	ARNG 000119 - 000609/UNC
Highest Grade: E-1		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 67R10 AH-64 Attack Helicopter Repairer   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: He has gone to college and received certifications in fire fighting, emergency medicine, and correctional law enforcement.  He has been a correctional officer for nearly seven years and is married with three children. 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 31 May 2001, the applicant was charged with being absent without leave (000811 - 010523).  
       
       On 1 June 2001, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense.  Further, the applicant indicated that he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits.  The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 11 April 2002, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 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 a 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.  Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  The applicant consulted with defense counsel, and voluntarily in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated or lesser-included offenses under the UCMJ.  
       
       The analyst noted that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and the applicant was aware of it prior to requesting discharge.  
         
       The analyst noted the following issues provided by the applicant: 
       Issue (1)  Clemency is warranted because it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge.  He is diligently seeking a promotion within his current field as a Correctional Peace Officer or with another department and his current level of discharge is overshadowing his accomplishments.
       
       Issue one is rejected:  The analyst noted the applicant's issue of employment and continued punishment; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.
       
       Issue (2)  He has been a good citizen since discharge.  He has gone to college and received certifications in fire fighting, emergency medicine, and correctional law enforcement.  He has been a correctional officer for nearly seven years and is married with three children and trying to make a better life for his family, while continuing to serve his state and country domestically.
       
        The applicant contends that since leaving the Army, he has been employed as a correctional officer for nearly seven years and is married with three children and is trying to make a better life for his family, while continuing to serve his state and country domestically.
       
       Issue two is rejected:  The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings.  The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.
       
       The analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many accomplishments outlined with the application and in the documents with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  
       
       Issue (3)  His record of AWOL/UA is the only offense. 
       
       Issue 3 is rejected:  The analyst noted that even though a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting an honorable discharge.
       
       Issue (4) He tried to obtain a hardship leave of absence to care for his father who was diagnosed with cancer and degenerative disk disease.  He was unable to obtain work and was losing his house.  He needed someone to help him in his most dire of circumstances, and the applicant was the only one he could rely upon.  His father has since deceased.   Personal problems impaired his ability to serve and noted above.
         
       Issue four is rejected:  The applicant contends mitigating circumstances which contributed to his misconduct.  Specifically, he claims his father’s illness resulted in his discharge.  While the applicant may believe his stress at home was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from stress through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.
       
       Issue (5)  He tried to serve and wanted to, but just couldn’t or wasn’t able to.  Once his obligation to his family was fulfilled, he went back to the service of his own accord.  He had every intention of fulfilling his obligation at the time, but was told that he would have to start all over and then offered the option of an 0TH discharge.  He agreed and signed the required paperwork, but his youth and immaturity didn’t allow him to fully understand the implications of such a discharge.
       
       Issue five is rejected:  The analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.
       
       Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 5 October 2012         Location: Washington, D. C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 with a self authored statement, letter of support from EMS instructor, and various certificates

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.


























        
IX.  Board Decision						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 0     No change 5 
Reason -     Change 0     No change 5 
(Board member names available upon request)

X.  Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to: 
Change Reason to: No Change
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




ARCHIE L. DAVIS III
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder


















Legend:
AWOL    	Absent Without Leave		GCM   General Court Martial	NA   Not applicable			SCM	Summary Court Martial
BCD   	Bad Conduct Discharge	GD      General Discharge	NIF   Not in the file			SPCM	Special Court Martial
CG 	Company Grade Article 15	HD      Honorable Discharge	OAD   Ordered to Active Duty		UNC	Uncharacterized Discharge  
DD 	Dishonorable Discharge	HS       High School Graduate	OMPF   Official Military Personnel File	UOTH  	Under Other Than Honorable 
FG	Field Grade Article 15		IADT   Initial Active Duty Training	RE     Reentry Code				Conditions 
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20120009586
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages