IN THE CASE OF:	

      BOARD DATE:  	25 September 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130006199
___________________________________________________________________________

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 general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his request is based on being able to use his Post 9/11 GI Bill educational benefits and obtaining an employment would be easier.  He was badly injured on 27 April 2012, in his unit in Germany.  Ten thousand lbs M177 Howitzer came over his foot and leg, and twisted him under the cannon.  He had multiple surgeries in Germany over a period of months.  When he was released, he was returned to the States for convalesce leave.  He saw multiple of doctors who advised him against returning to Germany, because it would worsen his foot.  He begged his unit to extend his leave, but was denied.  When he attempted to fly back, he was held up at the airport at the security check because of his cast and missed his flight.  He then considered going AWOL.  He panicked and did not know what to do until he voluntarily surrendered at Fort Sill.  He, in no way, intended to remain AWOL.  He was never in any trouble or had any UCMJ actions in over 23 months of service.  His foot keeps him from working in a lot of places; therefore, he needs to obtain a college degree in something that will allow for his injury. 
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	27 March 2013 
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	27 February 2013 
	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:	PCF, GSB, USA Garrison, Fort Sill, OK
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	12 October 2010, 3 years, 21 weeks 
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 10 months, 29 days
	h.	Total Service:	1 year, 10 months, 29 days 
	i.	Time Lost:	170 days
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None 
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-3 
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	13B10, Cannon Crewmember 
	m.	GT Score:	NIF
	n.	Education:	14 years
	o.	Overseas Service:	Germany 
	p.	Combat Service:	None 
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	NDSM; 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 12 October 2010, for a period of 3 years and 21 weeks.  He was 22 years old at the time of entry with two years of college education.  He served in Germany.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B10, Cannon Crewmember.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  He completed 1 year, 10 months, and 29 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes accrual of 170 days of time lost for being AWOL from 12 June 2012 until 28 November 2012, when he surrendered to military authorities on 29 November 2012.

2.  On 23 January 2013, 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.  

3.  On 25 January 2013, 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.  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.  

4.  On 7 February 2013, the unit commander reviewed the applicant’s request and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, and commented that the reason for his recommendation was due to the applicant being injured on active duty and a general, under honorable conditions discharge would allow him to receive medical benefits in support of his injury.  

5.  On 21 February 2013, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 

6.  On 27 February 2013, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 1 year, 10 months and 29 days of creditable active military service and accrued 170 days of time lost due to being AWOL.  The records also show 34 days of excess leave from 25 February 2013 to 27 February 2013.

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 a doctor’s medical note, dated 5 June 2012; doctor’s health encounter summary, dated 1 June 2012; and a German clinic treatment record, dated 21 May 2012.

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 the characterization of his discharge was 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 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 general, under honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance, and based on the separation authority’s determination to allow him to receive VA medical treatment and/or benefits.  His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable discharge by the separation authority and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable discharge at this late date.  

4.  The applicant contends his medical injuries caused him to miss his flight and subsequently panicked and went AWOL.  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.  Moreover, the applicant’s service record contains documentation that supports his medical condition; however, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  

5.  The applicant expressed his desire to have better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Further, 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.  The applicant contends that he had good service which included not having any adverse action during his 23 months of service.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident that led to 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 incident of misconduct, which led to the applicant voluntarily requesting to be separated in lieu of trial court-martial.

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:  25 September 2013     Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

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)		AR20130006199

Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1