IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	20 November 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130008529
___________________________________________________________________________

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 an upgrade of his discharge from under other than honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, her discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during 22 months of service.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		1 May 2013
b. Discharge Received:		Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			9 November 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:			Rear Detachment, 2-27th Infantry Regiment, 3rd 						Brigade Combat Team, Schofield Barracks, HI		
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	20 January 2005, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 9 months, 6 days
h. Total Service:			1 year, 9 months, 6 days
i. Time Lost:				15 days
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	25U10, Signal Support System Specialist
m. GT Score:				102
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Hawaii
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		No
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant was enlisted in the Regular Army 20 January 2005, for a period of 4 years.  She was 18 years old at the time of entry and a HS Graduate.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 25U10, Signal Support System Specialist.  Her record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements.  She was serving at Schofield Barracks, HI when her discharge was initiated and she achieved the rank of PFC/E-3. 



SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates that on      17 October 2006, the applicant was charged with the following offenses:

     a.  without authority, absenting herself from her unit (AWOL) x 3 (060717-060801), (060914-060919), (060927-061017).

     b.  without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty x 6 (060810, 060811, 060812, 060813, 060814, 060907).

     c.  being disrespectful in language and deportment toward a noncommissioned officer (SGT, 060816).

2.  On 19 October 2006, 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 she understood she 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 indicated in her request for discharge, a statement was submitted on her behalf; however, that statement is not contained in the available record.  The applicant’s chain of command recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

3.  On 23 October 2006, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  

4.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 9 November 2006, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 10,             AR 635-200, by reason of in lieu of trial by court-martial, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of KFS and an RE code of 4.

5.  The applicant's record of service shows she was AWOL during the period 17 July 2006 through 31 July 2006, for 15 days, mode of return unknown.  She was also AWOL during the periods 14 September 2006 through 19 September 2006 and 27 September 2006 through      17 October 2006, which are not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29 dates of time lost during this period.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Records of Pre-Trial Confinement including a DD Form 2707, Confinement Order, dated 17 October 2006, a Military Magistrate’s Review dated 18 October 2006, a DD Form 2715, Prisoner’s Release Order, dated 31 October 2006, directing the applicant’s release from confinement for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

2.  An Article 15, dated 24 May 2006, for without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (060407); being disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer (1SG, 060412); and willfully disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer x 2 (1SG, 060330) and a (SGT, 060504); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $636 pay x 2 months, extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 45 days, (FG).

3.  She received 12 negative counseling statements, dated between 30 March 2006 and           14 September 2006 for disobeying orders, disobeying a lawful order, failing to report, lying to a NCO, disrespecting NCOs, conduct unbecoming of a Soldier, failing to report on divers occasions, being AWOL, malingering, insubordinate conduct on divers occasions, notification of summary court-martial.

4.  The record contains five DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated between 14 September 2006 and 29 September 2006, which indicated the present for duty and AWOL dates.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any with the application.

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.  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.  

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.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.
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 her discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during 22 months of service.  However, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline.  

5.  Further, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with her overall service record.  

6.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

7.  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:  20 November 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)		AR20130008529



Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1