IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	28 April 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130012639
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

1.  After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the examiner’s Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge to be both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.  

2.  Further, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board noted certain administrative errors on the applicant's DD Form 214 and directed the following changes: 

a.  block 12a, changed to read 2000 03 10, 
b.  block 12c, changed to read 0000 10 29, 
c.  block 12h, changed to read 2000 03 10. 


      
      
      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 her under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable or general, under honorable conditions, and the narrative reason for separation changed.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she realizes that she tied the hands of anyone that could have helped her previously by going AWOL.  She is contending that her discharge was not equitable because she had a very compelling reason for going AWOL.  This was the one and only time that she was AWOL and it was an isolated incident.  She is not making excuses but asking the Board to have mercy and understand the decision she was faced with.  In fact, the day she was processed out of Ft. Sill (PCF confinement), her grandmother died.  At 21 years old she wasn’t mentally mature enough to make the right decisions with the given circumstances.  Her grandmother, whom raised her until she was 15 years old, was diagnosed with Leukemia.  The doctor projected that she had less than 6 months to live.  Her grandmother did not have anyone else to take care of her at the time.  She had spoken with her chain of command on several occasions prior to going AWOL.  She was told that she could not request emergency leave because she was in AlT and her grandmother was not considered her immediate family.  She was not granted a weekend pass even to go check on her grandmother.  Instead, she was put on extra detail and lockdown for asking for leave.  She had asked to talk to the chaplain on two occasions and was denied.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			5 July 2013
b. Discharge Received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				7 February 2001
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:				V Company, 262nd Quartermaster Battalion, 							Fort Lee, VA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		10 March 2000, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		8 months, 8 days
h. Total Service:				1 year, 1 month, 29 days
i. Time Lost:					80 days
j. Previous Discharges:			RA (970812-971209), UNC
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-2
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		77L10, Petroleum Lab Specialist
m. GT Score:					116
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				None
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No
s. Performance Ratings:			None
t. Counseling Statements:			None
u. Prior Board Review:				None

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 August 1997, for a period of 4 years.  She was 18 years old and a high school graduate.  She was discharged after serving three months and 28 days with a Chapter 11 discharge, entry level performance and conduct, with an uncharacterized service.  She rejoined the Regular Army on 10 March 2000, for a period of 4 years.  She was 20 years old at the time.  She was trained in military occupational specialty (MOS) 77L10, Petroleum Lab Specialist.  Her record documents no acts of valor or significant achievements.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes accrual of 80 days of time lost for being AWOL from 21 April 2000 until her apprehension by the civilian authorities on 10 July 2000.

2. On 18 July 2000, 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 21 July 2000, 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 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 17 January 2001, 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 7 February 2001, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) she was issued shows she completed 3 years, 4 months, and 28 days of creditable active military service and accrued 80 days of time lost due to being AWOL.  The DD Form 214 is incorrect.  Block 12a (date entered active duty), should read 2000-03-10, block 12c (net active service), should read 8 months and 9 days, and block 12d (total prior active service), should read 3 months and 28 days.  The applicant was placed on excess leave from 21 July 2000 through 7 February 2001, for a total of 202 days.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  There are no negative counseling’s or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

2.  Two DA Forms 4187, dated 12 May 2000 and 22 May 2000, showing the applicant was reported AWOL and dropped from roll.  The record also has a DD Form 616 (Report of Return of Absentee), dated 11 July 2000.

3.  A DA Form 458 (Charge Sheet), showing the applicant was charged with AWOL from 21 April 2000 through 11 July 2000.

4.  Case separation documents from the period of service covering 12 August 1997 through 9 December 1997 (Chapter 11).

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, DD Form 214, self-authored statement, a copy of a death certificate, marriage certificate, two birth certificates, an unofficial college transcript, Microsoft transcript, and a notice for a scheduled meeting.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant contends she has worked very hard toward a degree in Computer Forensics, and would like to pursue a career in Criminal Justice.  She is currently working full time.    

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 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.

ANALYST’S DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of her characterization and a change to her narrative reason was carefully considered.  

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 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 UOTHC 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 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 the event that caused her discharge from the Army was an isolated incident.  Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  

5.  The applicant contends that her discharge was not equitable because she had a very compelling reason for going AWOL.  Her grandmother had terminal cancer and she was not able to take emergency leave.  Her grandmother was not considered to be immediate family and her request to see the chaplain was denied.  The applicant’s contentions are noted; 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 or help from her chain of command before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.    

6.  The applicant contends that at 21 years old she wasn’t mentally mature enough to make the right decisions with the given circumstances.  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 or had to deal with such adversities.  

7.  The applicant contends she was put on extra detail and lockdown for asking for leave.  However, 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.  

8.  The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed.  The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, 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 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.  

9.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief.  

Board Determination and Directed Action

1.  After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the examiner’s Discussion and Recommendation, the Board determined the discharge to be both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.  

2.  Further, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board noted certain administrative errors on the applicant's DD Form 214 and directed the following changes: 

a.  block 12a, changed to read 2000 03 10, 
b.  block 12c, changed to read 0000 10 29, 
c.  block 12h, changed to read 2000 03 10. 








SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:   Record Review      Date:  28 April 2014	  Location: Arlington, VA

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:  Notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board noted certain administrative errors on the applicant's DD Form 214 and directed the following changes: 

a.  block 12a, changed to read 2000 03 10, 
b.  block 12c, changed to read 0000 10 29, 
c.  block 12h, changed to read 2000 03 10. 














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)		AR20130012639



Page 2 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1