IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	24 July 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130004728
___________________________________________________________________________

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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the overall length and quality of the applicant's post service, to include his combat service, and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  The Board determined the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  This action entails restoration of grade to E-3/PFC.



      
      
      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 his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that at the time of discharge he was a 20 year old kid who made a mistake. After 15 years he is still serving the military and has deployed four times in defense of this nation.  He is requesting that his original discharge be upgraded because he has earned four honorable discharges since being separated from the Regular Army.  He contends he is a War Veteran from Iraq and Afghanistan and received the Purple Heart for injuries sustained on 13 June 2012. He is now a different person, who made a huge mistake 15 years ago and has suffered from that mistake for too long.  He believes his current characterization of service impacts his job opportunities.  He also contents, his current service record shows he has learned from his mistake and has moved on to be a leader of Soldiers.  He is asking that his discharge be upgraded on the merits of his current service.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			5 March 2013
b. Discharge Received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				28 July 1998
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	  	In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, Chapter 10, 								KFS, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				B Co, 1st Bn, 67th AR, 2nd Bde, 4th IN Div, 							Fort Hood, TX
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		19 July 1995, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		3 years, 10 days
h. Total Service:				3 years, 10 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		19K10, M1 Armor Crewman
m. GT Score:					109
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:		

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 July 1995, for a period of 4 years.  He was 17 years old at the time and was a high school graduate.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievements.  He was serving at Fort Hood, TX when his discharge was initiated.  He completed 3 years and 10 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    30 March 1998, the applicant was charged with the following offenses:

      a. willfully and wrongfully damaged a SFC's vehicle by throwing paint remover on the hood and right fender of his 1966 Ford Mustang, the amount of the damage being in excess of $100.00 (980114)
      
      b. failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (980213)

2.  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 UOTHC discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits.  The applicant submitted a statement on his own behalf.  The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an UOTHC discharge.

3.  On 27 May 1998, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the discharge with a characterization of service of UOTHC.  The applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 

4.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 28 July 1998, with a characterization of service of UOTHC.

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:

An MP Report dated 15 January 1998, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for damage to private property.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant submitted no additional documents.


POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard 28 March 2000 after receiving a waiver for his disqualification of an RE-3, KFS (in lieu of trial by court-martial).  After three extensions, he reenlisted 4 July 2012 for a period of 6 years.  He has served four periods of active duty service, to include service in Cuba, Kuwait/Iraq, and Afghanistan.  He has been awarded the PH, ARCOM-2, AAM, AGCM, ARCAM-2, NDSM-2, ACM-w/CS, ICM-w/2CS, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-3, AFRM-w/M Device-2, and CAB. 

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.  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.

3.  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.  

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered.  

2.  After examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to fully honorable for the following reasons:  

	a. Overall length and quality of his post service accomplishments:  The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard after receiving a waiver for his prior discharge.  

	b. The record confirms the applicant is still serving as a member of the Army National Guard, that he has received several awards, specifically the PH, two ARCOM's, AAM, AGCM, and two ARCAM's, and that he has served a tour of combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

3.  This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct.  The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service is now too harsh and as a result inequitable. 

4.  In view of the foregoing, the characterization of the discharge is now inequitable and it is recommended the Board grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable.  This action entails restoration of grade to E-3/PFC.

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: Records Review	          Date:  24 July 2013          Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  3	No Change:  2
Reason Change:	0	No Change:  5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:		Yes
Change Characterization to:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
Change Reason to:			NA
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)		AR20130004728



Page 2 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1