IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	12 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120022554
___________________________________________________________________________

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 of his discharge from under other than honorable to general under honorable conditions or fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he strongly feels his service should not have been characterized as UOTH with over six years of service and based on the circumstances that he was a highly decorated Soldier with a bright career, but cut short.  He requests an upgrade to honorable so that he can serve in the U.S. Army again.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	29 November 2012
	b.	Discharge Received:	Under Other than Honorable
	c.	Date of Discharge:	15 November 2012
	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:	247th MP Detachment, U.S. Army Japan MP Bn 
			(Provisional), Torii Station, Okinawa, Japan
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	NIF- record shows an ETS date of 24 October 2014
			5 July 2006 / 4 years 20 weeks (initial enlistment)
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	6 years, 4 months, 11 days (inclusively, absent the 				reenlistment record)
	h.	Total Service:	6 years, 4 months, 11 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-5
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	42A (Human Resources Spec)
	m.	GT Score:	NIF
	n.	Education:	HS Grad
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA, Japan
	p.	Combat Service:	Iraq (070813-081109)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	ARCOM-2; AAM-2; AGCM; NDSM; ICM-2CS; 
			GWOTSM; NPDR; ASR; OSR-2
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	Yes
	t.	Counseling Statements:	Yes
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE	
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 July 2006 for a period of 4 years and 20 weeks, and record indicates he may have reenlisted, which is not in the file but according to an ETS date of 24 October 2014.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Iraq and Japan.  He earned two ARCOM and two AAM awards, and completed 6 years, 4 months, and 11 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates that on 24 October 2012, the applicant was charged with the following offenses:

      a. wrongfully attempted to solicit a prostitute (120716-120717)
      b. violate a lawful general order by wrongful possession of a vial containing an 
          intoxicating substance (120325) 

2.  On 26 October 2012, 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.  The applicant indicated he understood 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 did not submit a statement on his own behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

3.  On 6 November 2012, 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. 

4.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 15 November 2012, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

5.  The applicant’s record of service does not show any record of unauthorized absences or time lost.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Two negative counseling statements dated 3-5 July 2012 for conduct as an NCO, and possession of “blue Ecstasy” and 2 classified thumb drives.
      
2.  An U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service Report of Investigation, dated 25 July 2012, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for suspected violation of Articles 80 and 134, UCMJ, for pandering and prostitution. 

3.  CID Reports (CID028-98298 and 98301), dated 16 April 2012 and 26 July 2012, regarding failure to obey a general order and possession of liquid Ecstasy

4.  CID Report (CID028-98301), dated 16 April 2012, regarding failure to obey a general order and possession of liquid Ecstasy

5.  One NCOER covering the period of 1 August 2011 to 6 July 2012.  The applicant was rated as “Marginal” and received 5/5 from the senior rater for his overall performance and potential for promotion.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

 The applicant provided DD Form 293, dated 20 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 his characterization was carefully considered.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  It also shows that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

3.  The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance.  His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general discharge at this late date.  

4.  The applicant contends that he had over six years of good service and that he was a highly decorated Soldier.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the incidents of misconduct reported by the Criminal Investigation Division and the negative counseling statements.

5.  The applicant has requested a change to his character of service to honorable so that he may reenlist.  However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Based on AR 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE Code of 4.  An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment.

6.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.

7.  Therefore, the reason and characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief.

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: 	Records Review	  Date:  12 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)		AR20120022554



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1