IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr.

      BOARD DATE:  	31 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130000338
___________________________________________________________________________

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 that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions or honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because he had 2 years of inactive service and 3 years of active service and had only one problem.  He went AWOL and when he received an Article 15, he was very young and recently married and did not know how to survive so he did what he thought was right because he needed to make some money to support his wife.  He voluntarily turned himself in at Fort Stewart, GA.  He needs this upgrade to be eligible for VA medical benefits.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			3 January 2013
b. Discharge Received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				24 April 2001
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, Chapter 10,
AR 635-200, KFS, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:				Headquarters Company, 10th Engineer
Battalion, Fort Stewart, GA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		14 February 1997, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		3 years, 3 months, 3 days
h. Total Service:				5 years, 10 months, 22 days
i. Time Lost:					344 days
ARNG 940624-950807/NA
j. Previous Discharges:			ARNG 950508-950802/NA
ADT	 950803-951024/UNC
ARNG	 951025-970213/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		91B10, Medical Specialist
m. GT Score:					111
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				None
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			NDSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No
s. Performance Ratings:			None
t. Counseling Statements:			None
u. Prior Board Review:				No



SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
After serving in the Army National Guard (ARNG), the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 February 1997, for a period of 4 years.  He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B10, Medical Specialist.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  He completed 3 years, 3 months, and 3 days of active duty service. 

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 9 March 2000, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for absenting himself from his unit (AWOL); HHC, 10th Eng, Bn, located at Fort Stewart, GA from 28 March 1999 until he surrendered on 5 March 2000, at Fort Stewart, GA and was transferred to Fort Knox, KY, and assigned to the Special Processing Company.  

2.  On 9 March 2000, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial and of the maximum permissible punishment under the UCMJ, of the possible effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and of the rights and procedures available to him.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

3.  In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged that by submitting the request for discharge he was admitting he was guilty of the charge against him or of a lesser-included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge.  He also confirmed his understanding that if his request for discharge was approved, he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He further stated he understood that receipt of an under other than honorable conditions discharge could result in his being deprived of many or all Army benefits, his possible ineligibility for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under State and Federal laws. 

4.  On 6 March 2001, the unit commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

5.  The applicant was placed on excess leave for a total of 411 days which started on 10 March 2000 until he was discharged on 24 April 2001.  

6.  On 29 March 2001, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued an under other than honorable conditions Discharge Certificate.  

7.  On 24 April 2001, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 3 years, 2 months and 27 days of creditable active military service which is incorrect.  The net active service this period on the DD Form 214, block 12a; should be, 3, years, 3 months, and 3 days.  The applicant had accrued 344 days of lost time due to his period of AWOL.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

There are no negative counseling’s or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  However, the applicant states he received an Article 15.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided none with the application.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none with the application.  

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides that 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 discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. 

2.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

3.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.









DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

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

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 at the time of discharge 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 good service which consisted of 3 years, 3 months and 3 days of active military service and was awarded the NDSM and an ASR.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident 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 incident of his misconduct (i.e., AWOL).   

5.  The applicant contends he was very young and had recently gotten married and needed some money to support his wife.  The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  Further, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  

6.  The applicant further contends he needs VA medical benefits and cannot afford medical insurance.  Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include medical benefits or the 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.

7.  Therefore, the reason for the discharge 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:  31 May 2013          Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

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
























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)		AR20130000338



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1