IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	9 March 2015

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20140020614
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, 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 to his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or general, under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was inequitable.  The applicant contends, his unit failed him and his family during a traumatic time in their lives.  The applicant states, he had no adverse action prior to the misconduct.  He contends, that the situation he found himself in escalated above his pay grade and was left to navigate it on his own as a young Soldier.  He further contends his chain of command’s indecisive decisions complicated his return to Korea.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			17 November 2014
b. Discharge Received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				4 October 2002
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 Company, 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry
      Regiment, Camp Hovey, Korea
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		21 February 2001/3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		1 year, 7 months, 13 days
h. Total Service:				2 years, 11 months, 4 days
i. Time Lost:					428 days
j. Previous Discharges:			RA, 980818-010220, HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist
m. GT Score:					108
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				Korea
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			ARCOM, AAM-2, ASR 
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		N/A
s. Performance Ratings:			N/A
t. Counseling Statements:			No
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 August 1998, for a period of 3 years.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He reenlisted on 21 February 2001, for a period of 3 years.  He served in Korea.  He earned an ARCOM and two AAMs and completed 2 years, 11 months, and 4 days of active duty service.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Camp Hovey, Korea.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates that on 23 August 2002, the applicant was charged with the following offenses:

   a.  without authority, absent himself from his organization located at Hovey, Korea 
   (010327-020509), and
   
   b.  without authority, absent himself from his organization located at Fort Knox, Kentucky 
   (020730-020821). 

2.  On 23 August 2002, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, 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 own behalf.  The unit commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

3.  On 27 September 20002, 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 October 2002, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

5.  The applicant’s record of service indicates 428 days of time lost for being AWOL from 27 March 2001 to 8 May 2002, and 30 July 2002 to 20 August 2002.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

Memorandum, dated 23 August 2002, signed by the applicant, states he knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily declared that he was absent without leave from the U.S. Army from o/a 27 March 2001 to o/a 9 May 2002 and o/a 30 July 2002 to o/a 21 August 2002.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

1.  The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 13 November 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review.

2.  DA Form 31 (Request and Authority For Leave), dated 26 February 2001, reflects applicant requested leave from 27 February 2001 through 14 March 2001.  The applicant signed out on leave on 25 February 2001.  

3.  Email correspondence, dated 29 March 2001, between SGT M and the chain of command, regarding the applicant’s request for a permissive attachment.  The correspondence reflects the chain of command did not support an additional extension of leave or a permissive attachment (2 pages).

4.  Letter sent to the Secretary of the Army, undated, written by the applicant stating his family situation, his leave extension, and the difficulties he was encountering getting back to Korea.

5.  DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 9 May 2002, written by the applicant, explaining the events leading to his leave, his request to extend, the correspondence between SGT M and the applicant’s chain of command, and the applicant’s subsequent discharge from the military.  

6.  DA Form 31, dated 23 August 2002, reflects applicant was placed on voluntary excess leave without pay and allowances.  

7.  Report of Survey packet, initiated on 7 January 2003, contains the memorandum appointing the investigating officer, DA Form 4697 (Report of Survey), Central Issue Facility Clothing Record, finance report on applicant, four sworn statements, and two of a three page investigating officer’s (IO) findings and recommendations.  Several documents were noticeably missing in the packet (i.e. exhibits H, I, J, L, M, O, and P, the first page of SGT O’s sworn statement, and the first page of the IO’s findings and recommendations).

8.  The applicant submitted copies of his advancement to E-3 and E-4, certificate of achievement, certificate of affiliation, achievement and commendation awards, DD Form 1172 (DEERS Enrollment), and his pre-separation counseling checklist.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None provided 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.  

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 his characterization of service was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, the issue 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.  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, the discharge was inequitable because his unit failed him and his family during a traumatic time in their lives.  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.  There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.  

5.  The applicant contends, the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his entire Army career.  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.  The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  

6.  The applicant contends, his chain of command’s indecisive decisions further complicated his return to Korea, leaving him to navigate it on his own as a young Soldier.  The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature.

7.  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:  Personal Appearance	   Date:  9 March 2015	Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes 

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE:

1.  The applicant submitted the following additional documents:

	a.  Social Work Honor Society Acceptance Letter

	b.  Social Sciences Honor Society Acceptance Letter

	c.  Ordination Certificate

	d.  Psychology Honor Society Induction 

	e.  Theological School Alumni TAG

	f.   Emails (2 pages)

2.  The applicant presented no additional contentions.

	In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional documents and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing.

Board Vote:
Character Change:   1	No Change:  4
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:		No Change
Change RE Code to:			No Change
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)		AR20140020614



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1