IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	5 June 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130006019
___________________________________________________________________________

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 change his characterization of service from under other than honorable to uncharacterized discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he injured his right shoulder in basic training and was told to pick a new MOS.  He was set on Infantry and wanted nothing else.  He was told he did not have a choice by his physician and that he had to pick another job.  He went home on a pass that week and did not return to base on time due to some family issues.  He was in contact with his senior drill sergeant and returned to Fort Knox.  He feels that the Army did not have sufficient time to know the type of individual he was due to lack of time he spent in the Army.  He was very well liked by all of his drill sergeants.  Since his discharge, he obtained a peace officer training academy certificate from a state police academy.  He currently serves with two police departments and had also served with a third police department.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	22 January 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	21 July 2006
	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:	A Co, 1st Bn, 19th IN, Fort Benning, GA
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	9 February 2006, 3 years, 16 weeks
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	3 months, 16 days
	h.	Total Service:	3 months, 16 days
	i.	Time Lost:	58 days
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-2
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	None
	m.	GT Score:	NIF
	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:	No
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 February 2006, for a period of 3 years and 16 weeks.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  The applicant’s record does not contain any significant awards.  He was attending basic training at Fort Benning, GA, when he went AWOL.  
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes accrual of 58 days of time lost for being AWOL from 16 April 2006 until he surrendered to military authorities on 12 June 2006.

2.  On 15 June 2006, 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 15 June 2006, 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.

3.  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 on his own behalf.  

4.  On 7 July 2006, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.  

5.  On 21 July 2006, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 3 months and 16 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 no negative counseling’s or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided DD Form 214 for service under current review with his application; a certificate for completing a peace officer basic training program, dated 14 August 2009; two letters of personal and professional references from a police academy instructor and a former chief of police; and applicant’s resume.



POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, that since his discharge, he obtained a state peace officer training academy certificate and currently serves with two police departments. 

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.  

4.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It identifies the SPD code of "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

5.  The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" will be assigned an RE Code of 4.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request to change the characterization of his service and the reason for his discharge were carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, the issue and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit changes to the narrative reason and characterization 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 record shows that the applicant was in entry-level status when he returned from a period of AWOL (i.e., he had completed less than 180 days of continuous active duty).  The applicant was charged with AWOL and while still in entry-level status voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In essence the applicant’s separation action was initiated while the applicant was in an entry-level status and the command had the option to characterize the service under other than honorable conditions or to describe it as uncharacterized.  However, the under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance.  His 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 he went home on a pass and did not return to base on time due to some family issues.  However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  

5.  The applicant also contends that medical issues may have contributed to his discharge from the Army.  However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention 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.  Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge or a change to the narrative reason for his discharge.

6.  The applicant also contends that since leaving the Army he received training and served with three police departments, and that two are current.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with 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.   

7.  Regarding the applicant’s request for a change to the reason for his discharge, pursuant to his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, his discharge was directed under the provisions of Chapter 10, paragraph AR 635-200 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial,” and the separation code is "KFS."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.  
8.  Therefore, the reason for discharge 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:  5 June 2013         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  NA 

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:	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)		AR20130006019

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1