IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr.

      BOARD DATE:  	27 June 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130017460
___________________________________________________________________________

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 an upgrade of his discharge from under other than honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was not granted the amount of time back in country he was promised; he was upset and decided to go AWOL.  He was young and immature and only cared about what he wanted.  One mistake should not overshadow all of the time spent doing the right thing and serving his country with honor; one lapse in judgment during his time in the United States Army and he feels his discharge is inaccurate in reflecting the character of his service.  He served a prior deployment to Afghanistan with honor and integrity and was one of the last to leave the deployment from his unit; he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service.  He requests an upgrade of his discharge to honorable and reinstatement of any benefits due him.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		23 September 2013
b. Discharge Received:		Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			4 June 2003
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:			A Company, 92nd Engineer Combat Battalion, Fort
      Stewart, GA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	15 September 2000, 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 11 months, 21 days
h. Total Service:			4 years, 6 months, 14 days
i. Time Lost:				30 days
j. Previous Discharges:		USAR (980428-980513)NA									IADT (980514-980914)UNC									USAR (980915-000914)/NA
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	62B10, Construction Equipment Repairer
m. GT Score:				107
n. Education:				GED
o. Overseas Service:			Location NIF; the applicant indicated in his application 					he served in Afghanistan; his DD Form 214 shows 						foreign service of 6 months, 17 days.  Permanent 						Orders 86-5 further shows he was scheduled to
      deploy to Kuwait on or about 4 April 2003, in support
      of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
p. Combat Service:			Specific dates NIF
q. Decorations/Awards:		ASR, the applicant indicated in his application he 						earned an ARCOM; however, it is not supported by 						the record.
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the US Army Reserve on 28 April 1998, for a period of 8 years.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry with a GED Certificate.  He was ordered to initial active duty training (IADT) on 14 May 1998; he trained in and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 62B10, Construction Equipment Repairer.  His discharge date and the characterization of service he received were not in the file.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 September 2000, for a period of 3 years.  He was 20 years old at the time of entry with a GED Certificate.  His record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements; and he achieved the rank of SPC/E-4.  He was serving at Fort Stewart, GA when his discharge was initiated.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 8 May 2003, the applicant was charged with desertion by absenting himself from his unit in a time of war, with intent to avoid hazardous duty deployment to Iraq, (030331-030429).

2.  On 19 May 2003, 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 he understood he 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 did not submit a statement on his behalf.  The applicant’s chain of command recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 21 May 2003, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 

4.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 4 June 2003, 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 record of service indicates 30 days of time lost for desertion from 31 March 2003 until 29 April 2003; his mode of return is unknown.



EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  The record of evidence contains two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated between 31 March 2003 and 7 May 2003, indicating the applicant was present for duty, and AWOL.

2.  He received a negative counseling statement dated 1 April 2003 for being AWOL and missing movement.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided an online application (seven pages), two DD Forms 214, discharge orders 148-0006, Optional Form 41 (Routing and Transmittal Slip), memorandum, applicant’s PERSTEMPO days, movement orders 29-2, and two DA Forms 4187.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any information 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.

ANALYST’S DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of his characterization of service was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents 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.  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 and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general discharge at this late date.  

4.  The applicant contends he was not granted the amount of time back in country he was promised; he was upset and decided to go AWOL.  The applicant 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 further contends he was young and immature and only cared about what he wanted.  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.

6.  The applicant also contends one mistake should not overshadow all of the time spent doing the right thing and serving his country with honor; one lapse in judgment during his time in the United States Army and he feels his discharge is inaccurate in reflecting the character of his service.  Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization of service.  The applicant's single incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.

7.  The applicant additionally contends he served a prior deployment to Afghanistan with honor and integrity and was one of the last to leave the deployment from his unit; he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to overcome the reason for discharge and the characterization of service granted.

8.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge to honorable and reinstatement of any benefits due him.  Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational 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 contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.

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

10.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief.  

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review      Date:  27 June 2014        Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  No

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)		AR20130017460



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1