IN THE CASE OF:	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:	23 April 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130013892
___________________________________________________________________________

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 the characterization of her service from under other than honorable to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she was AWOL because she missed her flight and tried to obtain funds for a plane ticket back to her unit.  During the Christmas exodus leave, she became pregnant.  When she found out she was listed as AWOL, she turned herself in and was taken to Fort Knox, KY, for out-processing.  She was told if she aborted her unborn child that she could remain in the military.  She was scared of being court-martialed.  She signed the UOTH paperwork when she was told if she did not sign it, she would be court-martial.  Shortly after her discharge, she lost her baby, and also found out, she was bi-polar.  She is disable and wants nothing more than to get her discharge upgraded.  She is doing better with her life.  She is currently in college working very hard on getting her degree. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	29 July 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	12 April 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:	Co B, 3rd Bn, 34th IN, Fort Jackson, SC
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	26 October 2005, 3 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	0 years, 3 months, 16 days 
	h.	Total Service:	0 years, 3 months, 16 days
	i.	Time Lost:	60 days
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-1
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	None
	m.	GT Score:	99
	n.	Education:	GED
	o.	Overseas Service:	None
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	None
	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 26 October 2005, for a period of 3 years.  She was 18 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED).  Her record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  She completed 3 months and 16 days of active duty service.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes accrual of 60 days of time lost for being AWOL from 7 January 2006 until she surrendered to military authorities on 7 March 2006.

2.  On 16 March 2006, 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 16 March 2006, 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 for the good of the service 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 28 March 2006, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge certificate.  

5.  On 12 April 2006, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) she was issued shows she completed 3 months and 16 days of creditable active military service and accrued 60 days of time lost due to being AWOL.  The record also shows 27 days of excess leave (060317-060412). 

6.  The applicant's record shows she was absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 7 January 2006 through 7 March 2006.  She surrendered to military authorities on 8 March 2006.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

There are no negative counseling statements or any further actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided an online application with no further evidence.  

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, she is in college and working hard to obtain a degree. 

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 her discharge 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 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, in explaining the reason for the AWOL incident that led to her discharge, contends that she was led to believe she would remain in the military if she aborted her unborn child and that she would be court-martial, if she did not sign her UOTH paperwork.  Because she did not want to abort her unborn child and was scared of being tried by a court-martial, she signed the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  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 before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  The rationale that she signed her request because she did not want to abort her unborn child and that she was scared as the basis for what she believes to be unfairly discharged, is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature.

5.  She further contends she found out she was bipolar, and that she is disable and wants nothing more than to have her discharge upgraded.  Perhaps, indicating that her medical issue may have contributed to her discharge from the Army.  However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication.  

6.  The applicant contends she is currently in college and working hard to obtain a degree.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishment was noted as outlined on the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that her accomplishment did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  Her record was marred by 60 days of lost time for being AWOL for which court-martial charges were preferred against her.

7.  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.  Accordingly, the records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

8.  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:  23 April 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)		AR20130013892

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1