IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr.

      BOARD DATE:  	10 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120021524
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.




      
      
      Presiding Officer
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case.

THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

1.  The applicant requests an upgrade to his characterization of service from under other than honorable to general, under honorable conditions or honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that it is important to him for changes to be made to his discharge because he has received awards, discovered IED, and going on over 300 night missions in a 13-month tour overseas.  He loves serving his country as it was such an honor.
 

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	19 November 2012
	b.	Discharge Received:	Under other than honorable conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	21 September 2006
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, 
			Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4
	e.	Unit of assignment:	Co C, 69 AR Tank MI, Fort Benning, GA
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	10 January 2004 / 4 years, 17 weeks
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 6 months, 12 days
	h.	Total Service:	2 years, 6 months, 12 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	19K (M1 Armor Crewman)
	m.	GT Score:	105
	n.	Education:	HS Grad
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA
	p.	Combat Service:	Iraq (050116-060204)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	ICM; GWOTSM; ASR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	NIF
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 January 2004 for a period of 4 years and 17 weeks.  He was 29 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Iraq.  There is no record that shows he received any awards.  He completed 2 years, 6 months, and 12 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates that on 21 September 2006, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS i.e., in lieu of trial by court-martial) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4.

3.  The applicant’s record does not show any record of actions under the UCMJ or unauthorized absences or time lost.

4.  On 13 September 2006, DA, HQ, U.S. Infantry Center, Fort Benning, GA, Orders Number 236-2201, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 21 September 2006.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

None.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided DD Form 293, dated 11 November 2012; DD Form 214 for service under current review.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none.  

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  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.  

2.  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.  

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge.  

3.  The applicant's contentions were carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service.  Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  This presumption is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity in this case and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge.  Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance, it is his responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record.  The applicant will need to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence (i.e., discharge packet) sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration.

5.  Therefore, based on the available evidence and the presumption of government regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief.




















SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: 	Records Review	  Date:  10 April 2013     Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  0	No Change:  5
Reason Change:	0	No Change:  5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:		No
Change Characterization to:	No Change
Change Reason to:		No Change
Change Authority for Separation:	N/A
Change RE Code to:	N/A
Grade Restoration to:	N/A
Other:	N/A



















Legend:
AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record	FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	 	RE - Reentry
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NA - Not applicable	SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
CID - Criminal investigation Department	MP – Military Police	OMPF - Official Military Personnel File	UOTHC - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions


ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20120021524



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1