IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	28 March 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130013727
___________________________________________________________________________

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 his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions or honorable and his narrative reason changed.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he enlisted in the US Army in December of 2005.  While he was in the reception station he was informed that his mother was having issues with drugs. At the time, she was in the care of his three younger siblings.  He brought this issue to his company commander that he would like to exit the service in order to help raise his younger siblings.  At that time period he would have had only two weeks into the Army.  After he decided to go AWOL, he found out that he could have left the service within 30 days under a general separation.  While he was enlisted he tried every outlet he could to be discharged.  Each time his commander denied his request.  After about five years of being AWOL, he was picked up and brought back to Kentucky to complete his separation. Since he has been out of the service for 8 years, he has been denied 39 jobs offers because of the type of discharge he received.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			25 July 2013
b. Discharge Received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				9 March 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:				Trp B, 5th Bn, 15th Cav, Fort Knox, KY 
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		29 December 2005, 3 years, 18 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:		4 months, 12 days
h. Total Service:				4 months, 12 days
i. Time Lost:					1,390 days, AWOL (060403-100201)
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-1
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		19D10, Cavalry Scout
m. GT Score:					NIF
n. Education:					GED
o. Overseas Service:				None
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			NDSM, 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 29 December 2005, for a period of 3 years, 18 weeks.  He was 17 years old and had a GED.  He was trained in military occupational specialty (MOS) 19D, Cavalry Scout.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievements.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes accrual of 1,390 days of time lost for being AWOL from 3 April 2006 until his apprehension on 1 February 2010.

2. On 8 February 2010, court-martial charges were 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.  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 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 in his own behalf.  

4.  On 25 February 2010, 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 9 March 2010, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 4 months and 12 days of creditable active military service and accrued 1390 days of time lost due to being AWOL.   

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  DD Form 458, Charge Sheet, dated 8 February 2010, showing the applicant was charged with AWOL (060403-100202).  The applicant was apprehended by civilian authorities.

2.  Three DA Forms 4187, Personnel Actions, dated 3 April 2006, 3 May 2006, and 5 February 2010, showing the applicant was reported AWOL, dropped from rolls, and apprehended/present for duty, respectively.  

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

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 

The applicant provided an online DD Form 293 and a DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None provided with the application.  

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter10 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.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of his characterization 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.  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 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 that while he was in the reception station he was informed that his mother was having issues with drugs.  At the time, she was in the care of his three younger siblings.  He brought this issue to his company commander that he would like to exit the service in order to help raise his younger siblings.  His request was denied so he decided to go AWOL after trying every outlet.  The applicant’s contentions were noted; 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 contends that after about five years of being AWOL, he was picked up and brought back to Kentucky to complete his separation. Since he has been out of the service for 8 years, he has been denied 39 jobs offers because of the type of discharge he received.  
The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

6.  The applicant requested a change to the narrative reason for the discharge.  The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  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.  

7.  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:  28 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:		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)		AR20130013727



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1