IN THE CASE OF:	

      BOARD DATE:  	28 August 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130005224
___________________________________________________________________________

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 or honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she believes she deserves an upgrade because when she was discharged, she was very sick at home during a Christmas break.  Her asthma started flaring up and had a sever pneumonia.  She was admitted to Walter Reed.  Her commander during that period did not care; however, she always had prior issues with her health.  She had also informed her recruiter of her asthma issue.  Her commander would not allow her the necessary time to regain her health.  She also had a staff infection while in the hospital.  Her state of health was the worst it had ever been and was in no position to return to duty by that time.  She does not have the actual documents; however, Walter Reed should have her medical documents for the period she was in the hospital.  She is also in the process of obtaining medical documents from her previous doctors that relate to her asthma condition.  She listened to her recruiter thinking she would be okay.   

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	14 March 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	14 May 2003
	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:	Co B, 232d Med Bn, Fort Sam Houston, TX
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	20 August 2002, 4 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	0 years, 6 months, 3 days
	h.	Total Service:	0 years, 6 months, 3 days
	i.	Time Lost:	82 days
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-1
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	None
	m.	GT Score:	111
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	None
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	None
	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 20 August 2002, for a period of 4 years.  She was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  Her record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement, or any overseas assignment.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes accrual of 82 days of time lost for being AWOL from 1 February 2003 until she surrendered to military authorities on 24 April 2003.

2.  On 1 May 2003, a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) based on the AWOL offense outlined in the preceding paragraph.  On 1 May 2003, 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 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 in her own behalf.  

4.  On 6 May 2003, 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.  

5.  On 14 May 2003, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) she was issued shows she completed 6 months and 3 days of creditable active military service and accrued 82 days of time lost due to being AWOL.  

6.  The applicant’s record shows she surrendered and returned to military control.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

There are no negative counseling statements or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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 her characterization of service 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.  Her 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 medical issues contributed to her discharge from the Army.  However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication.  
5.  The applicant contends she received no help from her command regarding her medical issues that ultimately led to the incident that caused her to be discharged.  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.  

6.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the 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: 28 August 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)		AR20130005224



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1