IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	26 March 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130013078
___________________________________________________________________________

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 Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge to be both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.  

2.  However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant’s discharge, the Board found that the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 24, contains the erroneous characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 

3.  In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 24, characterization of service to read "General, Under Honorable Conditions,” as approved by the separation authority.  






      
      
      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 her discharge from under other than honorable conditions to general, under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, her father was dying and she wasn’t allowed to go on leave.  
She was held in jail for three months; the military left her there or mishandled the paperwork.  Her insurance and pay was stopped.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		16 July 2013
b. Discharge Received:		Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			1 February 2010
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 Co, 551st Signal Battalion, Fort Gordon, GA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	17 June 2008, 3 years and 27 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	11 months, 7 days
h. Total Service:			11 months, 7 days
i. Time Lost:				250 days
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-1
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	25Q10, Multichannel Transmission Systems
      Operator/Maintainer
m. GT Score:				102
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		No
t. Counseling Statements:		No
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant was enlisted in the Regular Army 17 June 2008, for a period of 3 years and 27 weeks.  She was 18 years old at the time of entry and a HS Graduate.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 25Q10, Multichannel Transmission Systems Operator/Maintainer.  Her record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements.  She was serving at Fort Gordon, GA when her discharge was initiated.




SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates that on      28 December 2009, the applicant was charged without authority, absenting herself from her unit (AWOL) (090201-091009).

2.  On 28 December 2009, 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 submitted a statement on her behalf. The unit commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

3.  On 10 January 2010, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

4.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 1 February 2010, 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 service record does not contain any evidence of any actions Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or negative counseling statements.

6.  The applicant’s record of service indicates 250 days of time lost for being AWOL from         1 February 2009 until her apprehension on 9 October 2009.  Also, she had 35 days of excess leave from 29 December 2009 until 1 February 2010.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  The record of evidence contains a DD Form 616 (Report of Return of Absentee), dated       9 October 2009, which indicated the applicant was apprehended.

2.  The record contains three DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated between 1 February 2009 and 29 September 2006, which indicated the present for duty, AWOL, and dropped from rolls dates.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, and the trial defense counsel’s hand written letter.

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, the issues 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.  Her 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 at this late date.  

4.  The applicant contends her father was dying and she wasn’t allowed to go on leave.  The record of evidence does not demonstrate that she sought relief through her command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct.
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 his overall service record.  

6.  The applicant further contends she was held in jail for three months; the military left her there or mishandled the paperwork.  The record of evidence does not support this contention and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that she was held in jail for three months.  However, the record of evidence does show that she was AWOL from         1 February 2009 until her apprehension on 9 October 2009.

7.  The applicant also contends her insurance and pay was stopped.  These entitlements were stopped due to the applicant being in a no pay status because she was AWOL for 250 days.  

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

9.  Furthermore, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the record shows that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 24, character of service as under other than honorable conditions.  In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that an administrative change be made to block 24, character of service to "general, under honorable conditions," as approved by the separation authority.  Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's characterization of service, the discharge was both proper and equitable.






















SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review       Date:  26 March 2014       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:		Yes
Change Characterization to:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
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)		AR20130013078



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1