IN THE CASE OF:	

      BOARD DATE:  	4 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130004949
___________________________________________________________________________

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

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he served his country honorably, but had a mishap, a DUI.  He has received numerous awards, to include from Secretary of Defense, Army Chief of Staff, and Army Vice Chief of Staff, to name a few.  He is not condoning his actions of DUI; however, he was going through a nasty divorce at the time.  He needs an upgrade to go to college to obtain a nursing degree and without his GI Bill; it is going to be difficult.  He would like to participate in the school to work program through the VA hospital.  He feels he is still an asset to his country and the Army.  He needs the second chance to do it the right way and feels he has been fully rehabilitated.    

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	11 March 2013 
	b.	Discharge Received:	Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 
	c.	Date of Discharge:	1 March 2007 
	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:	HHT, 4th Sqdn, 7th CAV, 2ID, USAG Casey, Korea
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	25 February 2004, 4 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 0 months, 7 days
	h.	Total Service:	3 years, 0 months, 7 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None 
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None 
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4 
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	68W10, Health Care Specialist 
	m.	GT Score:	116 
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate 
	o.	Overseas Service:	Korea 
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	AAM; NDSM; GWOTSM; KDSM; ASR; OSR 
	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 25 February 2004, for a period of 4 years.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Korea.  He earned an AAM.  He completed 3 years and 7days of active duty service.


SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates that on 23 January 2007, the applicant was charged with the following offenses:

      a. disobeying an NCO (061216)
      b. disobeying a lawful order issued by policy on legal drinking age (061216) 
      c. disobeying a lawful regulation (061216)
      d. damaging military property (061216)
      e. operating a vehicle with intoxicated (061216)
      f.  assaulting an NCO (061216)
      g. leaving scene of accident (061216)

2.  On 24 January 2007, 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 submitted a statement on his own behalf.  The unit commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

3.  On 12 February 2007, 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 1 March 2007, 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.  An MP Blotter, dated 16 December 2006, by attachment to an e-mail correspondence, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for several alcohol-related offenses:  traffic accident; failing to obey order or regulation; and wrongful appropriation of government vehicle.  An MP Report, dated 26 December 2006, indicates the applicant as the subject of an investigation for traffic accident and driving under the influence.  

2.  There are no negative counseling’s or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided no further evidence with his self-authored statement. 


POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none.  

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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.  

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 his characterization was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, the issue and document 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 applicant contends that he had good service which included receiving recognitions by prominent members.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused his 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 serious incidents of misconduct.  The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance.  His record documents an AAM; however, it did not support the issuance of a general discharge by the separation authority and it does not support an upgrade to a general discharge at this late date.  

4.  The applicant contends he feels he has been fully rehabilitated.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishment has been noted as outlined on the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that this accomplishment did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  

5.  The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill.  However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or 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.

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:  4 October 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)		AR20130004949

Page 2 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1