IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	9 May 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130014667
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

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 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 that her under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions or fully honorable.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she would like to file a claim for veterans benefits related to her military service.  She is currently a federal employee and an upstanding citizen who has turned her life completely around since her discharge.  She has been diagnosed by a physician at Princeton University Hospital as having bipolar disorder.  She needs her discharge upgraded in order for the Department of Veterans Affairs to investigate her claim.  The main reason she was discharged was because she had received some money from a person that she considered a friend.  The person she thought was a friend did not tell her that she had stolen a check and had someone else cash the check.  She had no involvement in the stolen check, however; she was penalized due to bad judgment.  She received $300.00 in cash from the person who was supposed to have been her friend at the time.  She made restitution of all the monies owed before her release from the military.  She has turned her life completely around since the event occurred 15 years ago.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			7 August 2013
b. Discharge Received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				22 December 1998
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, AR 635-200,
Chapter 10, KFS, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				31st Chemical Company, 2nd Chemical 
f. 						Battalion, 13th Corps Support Command, 
Fort Hood, TX
g. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		27 June 1997, 3 years
h. Current Enlistment Service:		1 year, 5 months, 26 days
i. Total Service:				1 year, 5 months, 26 days
j. Time Lost:					None
k. Previous Discharges:			None
l. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-2
m. Military Occupational Specialty:		54B10, Chemical Operations Specialist
n. GT Score:					NIF
o. Education:					HS Grad
p. Overseas Service:				None
q. Combat Service:				None
r. Decorations/Awards:			ASR
s. Administrative Separation Board: 		NA
t. Performance Ratings:			No
u. Counseling Statements:			No
v. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 June 1997 for a period of 3 years.  She was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  She did not serve overseas and when her discharge proceedings were initiated she was stationed at Fort Hood, TX.  Her record documents no acts of valor or significant achievements and she completed 1 year, 5 months, and 26 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 14 October 1998, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the following offenses:

      a.  On 9 May 1998, conspire with a PFC and a PVT to commit forgery, by falsely making, with intent to defraud, a certain check in the amount of $900.00. 
      
      b.  On 9 May 1998, committed larceny, in that she stole US currency of a value of about $300.00, the property of a PFC.  
      
2.  On 21 October 1998, 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 submitted a statement on her own behalf.  

4.  On 26 October 1998, the trial counsel in a memorandum for record indicated that after consulting with the applicant’s chain of command each commander recommended approval of the request for separation from active duty with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

5.  On 27 October 1998, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that she be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
6.  The applicant was separated on 22 December 1998, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of KFS, and an RE code of 3.   

7.  The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  A CID Report dated 7 July 1998, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for conspiracy, forgery and larceny of private funds.   

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293 dated 26 July 2013, with her issues.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant stated in her issue that she is a federal employee and an upstanding citizen who has turned her life completely around since her discharge.  

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.  

ANALYST’S 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 she would like to file a claim for veterans benefits related to her military service.  She has been diagnosed by a physician at Princeton University Hospital as having a bipolar disorder.  She needs her discharge upgraded in order for the Department of Veterans Affairs to investigate her claim.  She is currently a federal employee and an upstanding citizen who has turned her life completely around since her discharge and the event occurred 15 years ago.  She made restitution of all the monies owed before her release from the military.  Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational and medical benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should continue to contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.

5.  Additionally, the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings.  The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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:  9 May 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)		AR20130014667



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1