IN THE CASE OF:	

      BOARD DATE:  	11 September 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130003397
___________________________________________________________________________

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 to upgrade her characterization of service from under other than honorable to general, under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, during the period of her AWOL, she was a divorced parent of two children.  One child was living with her and the other was residing with her sister in another state when the child had an accident that resulted in removal of his spleen.  Those and many other issues caused major stress that led her to just going home.  Now, at the age of 50, she knows that there are many things she can do for her country and loved ones, but needs help getting there.  Her request for an upgrade is not just for herself after 14 years of proud service, but for other veterans she can help.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	12 February 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 
	c.	Date of Discharge:	19 September 2001
	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:	Btry A, SPC, USAPCF, Fort Sill, OK
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	4 August 1994, 6 years (USAR)
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	5 years, 10 months, 29 days (includes 491 days 
			excess leave)
	h.	Total Service:	13 years, 10 months, 29 days
	i.	Time Lost:	443 days
	j.	Previous Discharges:	USAR (860812-860817) / NA
			ADT    (860818-870228) / HD 
			USAR (870301-910713) / NA
			RA      (910714-940803) / HD
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-5
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	75B10, Personnel Administration Specialist
	m.	GT Score:	NIF
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	NIF
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	MSM; ARCOM-3; AAM-2; AGCM-2; ARCAM; NDSM
			AFRM-1HD; NPDR; ASR;
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	Yes
	t.	Counseling Statements:	NIF
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No




SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The record shows the applicant served in the USAR and in the Regular Army between 12 August 1986 and 19 September 2001.  She was 23 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate, and 31 years old at her latter USAR reenlistment for a period of 6 years.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 75B10, Personnel Administration Specialist.  Her record documents having earned an MSM, ARCOM (3rd award), AAM (2nd award) and ARCAM.  She completed 13 years, 10 months, and 29 days of creditable active and reserve service.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes accrual of 443 days of time lost for being AWOL on three separate occasions from: 24 October 1996 through 27 October 1996; 26 February 1999 through 25 March 1999; and 26 March until her apprehension on 9 May 2000, and return to military control.

2.  On 16 May 2000, a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) based on the latter two AWOL offenses outlined in the preceding paragraph.  On 16 May 2000, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  She 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 her.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

3.  In her request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged that by submitting the request for discharge she was admitting she was guilty of the charge against her or of a lesser-included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge.  She also confirmed her understanding that if her request for discharge was approved, she could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  She further stated she understood that receipt of an under other than honorable conditions discharge could result in her being deprived of many or all Army benefits, her possible ineligibility for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and she could be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under State and Federal laws.  The applicant confirmed she had no desire to perform further military service and did not submit a statement on her own behalf.  

4.  17 May 2000, the applicant was placed on excess leave (creditable for all purposes, except pay and allowances) from 17 May 2000 through 19 September 2001 for a total of 491 days.

5.  On 9 August 2001, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that she be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.  

6.  On 19 September 2001, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) she was issued shows she completed 13 years, 10 months, and 29 days of creditable active and reserve military service, and accrued 443 days of time lost due to being AWOL.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 7 March 1997, for leaving scene of accident and displaying behavior consistent with driving while intoxicated.

2.  A Report of Return of Absentee, dated 9 May 2000, that indicates the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control.   

3.  Five NCOERs covering the period:

	a.	April 1998 to February 1999.  The applicant was rated as “Marginal” and received 5/5 from the senior rater.  The senior rater further commented she was AWOL over 30 days and dropped from the rolls of the Army.

	b.	June 1995 to May 1996.  The applicant was rated as “Among the Best” and received 1/1 from the senior rater.

	c.	January 1995 to May 1995.  The applicant was rated as “Among the Best” and received 1/1 from the senior rater.

	d.	June 1994 to December 1994.  The applicant was rated as “Among the Best” and received 2/2 from the senior rater.

	e.	June 1993 to May 1994.  The applicant was rated as “Among the Best” and received 2/2 from the senior rater.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided none.

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 her discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service and the issues 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.  Her record that documents her achievements were considered during her separation proceeding; however, the period of her extensive AWOL and subsequently being dropped from rolls 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 she was having family issues that ultimately led to her discharge.  However, she had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  

5.  The applicant contends that she had good service which included 14 years of proud service.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that caused her to voluntarily request for a discharge 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 repeated incidents of AWOL.

6.  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:  11 September 2013      Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel:  None

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:		No Change
Change RE Code to:			No Change
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)		AR20130003397

Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1