Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/05/14	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he is requesting an upgrade of his discharge in order to receive medical and other veteran’s benefits for disabilities involving his deployment and related substance abuse problems.  He states that he is suffering from PTSD and has had difficulties finding suitable housing and employment due to his medical condition.  

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: 110510
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 110621   Chapter: 10    AR: 635-200
Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial	   RE:     SPD: KFS   Unit/Location: B Co, 2d Bn, 3d IN Rgt, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA 

Time Lost: 129 days.  AWOL for 25 days (110101-110125), apprehended; AWOL again for 104 days (110228-110612), apprehended.

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:  22
Current ENL Date: 070814    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  17 weeks
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 05 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 05 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11C10/Indirect Fire Infantryman   GT: 114   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq (090809-100726)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AGCM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 20 April 2011, the applicant was charged with two specifications of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 January 2011 until his apprehension on 25 January 2011 and 28 January 2011 until his apprehension on 22 March 2011; theft of an X-Box 360 and a laptop computer (101208-101220), valued at over $500; theft of a TV valued at under $500 (101221-101222); and disobeying a lawful no-contact order from a commissioned officer (101218).  
       
       On 28 April 2011, 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 he understood that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate senior commanders recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 9 June 2011, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 

       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 and the issues 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 several offenses 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 also noted that the DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document-Drug Testing) dated 17 November 2010 indicates a positive drug test for morphine, found in the applicant's official record shows that the test was coded CO for "Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty.”  The Limited Use Policy applies to this test basis, per AR 600-85.  However, the evidence of record contains a counseling statement by the Team Leader, SGT S, which states that the applicant’s wife had kicked him out of the house because she caught him doing drugs.  This would have given the unit commander probable cause to direct the urinalysis.  Additionally, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, who would have informed him if the Limited Use Policy applied.  In view of the aforementioned, the analyst determined that the code on the DD Form 2624 was in all likelihood incorrect and should have been coded PO for “Probable Cause” instead of CO for “Competence for Duty.”  The analyst concluded that the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case and the evidence did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made.
       
       The applicant contends that he is suffering from PTSD; however, the record does not support the issue that the applicant suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and the applicant submitted no evidence to support that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  The record shows that on 19 November 2010, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates that he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong.
       
       The analyst also noted the applicant's issue about his desire to use the medical benefits available to all veterans who served honorably.  However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include medical and educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.
       
       Finally, the analyst noted the applicant's issue about his difficulties finding employment; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.
       
       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: 3 October 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: None

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: NA
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 AR20120009889
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages