IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr.

      BOARD DATE:  	9 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130005909
___________________________________________________________________________

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

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he made a stupid mistake and went AWOL.  There is no justification for what he did.  There were intense problems with his marriage and he didn’t know where to get help or how to ask for help.  Since his discharge, he has been a law abiding and taxpaying citizen.  He has also repaired the issues with his marriage and they are still married today.  He has gone to college and will receive his B.S. in Finance in May 2013.  He does not purport that he had been dealt with unfairly, but rather he asks for forgiveness and mercy.  We all make mistakes in our lives, some worse than others.  We each will receive the mercy we grant each other.  A partial upgrade will not provide him with any honors or privileges reserved for those who faithfully completed their service, but will allow him to move forward with his life.  He asks that this mistake he made at a young and naive age not curse him for the rest of his days. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			21 March 2013
b. Discharge Received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				20 February 2002
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:				C Company, 2/187th Infantry, Fort Campbell 							KY 		
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		3 October 1995, 6 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		6 years, 2 months, 22 days
h. Total Service:				6 years, 2 months, 22 days
i. Time Lost:					58 days, AWOL 
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-5
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		11B10, Infantryman
m. GT Score:					115
n. Education:					GED
o. Overseas Service:				Bosnia
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			AAM-2, NDSM, AFEM, AFSM, ASR, NATO 							MDL, 
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No
s. Performance Ratings:			Yes
t. Counseling Statements:			None
u. Prior Board Review:				No



SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 October 1995, for 3 years.   He was 18 years old and had a high school equivalency (GED).  He reenlisted on 20 July 1998 for 6 years.  His record shows he was awarded two AAMs.   

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes accrual of 58 days of time lost for being AWOL between 27 March 2001 and 21 May 2001, he surrendered.

2. On 24 May 2001, court-martial charges 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.  

3.  On 24 May 2001, 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 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

4.  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.  The applicant confirmed he had no desire to perform further military service and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  

5.  On 25 May 2001, the applicant was placed on excess leave for 272 days (010525-020220).

6.  On 8 February 2002, 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 20 February 2002, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 6 years, 2 months and 22 days of creditable active military service and accrued 58 days of time lost due to being AWOL.  



EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

There are two successful NCOERs covering the period April 2000 through March 2001.  The applicant was rated fully capable on each report.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 

The applicant provided a DD Form 293 and a DD Form 214.    

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant contends he has gone to college and will receive his B.S. in Finance.  He has also repaired his marriage.   

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 his discharge 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance.  His record shows he was awarded two AAM; however, this does 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 wishes the mistakes he made while at a very young and naïve age not curse him for the rest of his days.  However, 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, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

5.  The applicant contends he is requesting an upgrade of his discharge because there were intense problems with his marriage and he didn’t know where to get help or how to ask for help.  While the applicant may believe his marital issues at home was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief for his marital issues through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, or other resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.  

6.  The applicant contends he is a law abiding and taxpaying citizen.  He has gone to college and will receive his B.S. in Finance.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have 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 these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities

7.  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:  9 October 2013        Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers:  	NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  2	No Change:  3
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:	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)		AR20130005909



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1