IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	27 April 2015

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20150001024
___________________________________________________________________________

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 did not properly annotate on the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade.  However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade, as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28, which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge, unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge.  The applicant requested a change to his active duty date, which was 16 March 1982, and birth date.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he would like to be reinstated into the military. He contends his discharge was the result of family issues.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		13 January 2015
b. Discharge Received:		Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			15 June 2007
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 Co, 82d CM Bn, Fort Leonard Wood, MO
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	7 April 2005, 3 years and 25 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	9 months, 11 days
h. Total Service:			9 months, 11 days
i. Time Lost:				512 days
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-1
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	None
m. GT Score:				NIF
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		None
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 April 2005, for a period of 3 years and           25 weeks.  He was 23 years old at the time of enlistment and a high school graduate.  The record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates that on 15 June 2007, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS (i.e., in lieu of trial by court-martial) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4.

3.  On 7 June 2007, DA, US Army Installation Management Command, HQ, USAG, Fort Sill, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, Orders Number 158-0676, discharged the applicant from the Army, effective 15 June 2007.

4.  The applicant’s record of service indicates 512 days of time lost for going AWOL from          14 September 2005, until his return on 2 March 2007.  The DD Form 214 under review also indicates 92 days of excess leave (16 March 2007–15 June 2007).

5.  There are no negative counseling statements or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in the available record.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Three DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated between 15 October 2005 and                  4 November 2005, changing the applicant's duty status from present for duty (PDY) to ordinary leave (OLV), OLV to absent without leave (AWOL), and AWOL to dropped from the rolls.

2.  A report of return of absentee (DD Form 616) dated 2 March 2007, indicating the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities on 2 March 2007, after going AWOL on 5 October 2005.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 149 in lieu of a DD Form 293.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None was provided with the application.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 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 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.  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.  

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade.  However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge.  

2.  However, after examining the applicant’s available 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.

3.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant's signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge.  Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 

4.  The applicant's contentions were carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service.  Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  This presumption is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity in this case and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge.  

5.  Therefore, based on the available evidence and the presumption of government regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus the analyst recommends the Board deny relief.

6.  Additionally, the applicant requests a change to his active duty date and birth date.  However, the applicant’s requested changes do not fall within the purview of this Board.  The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding these issues.  A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: Records Review	  	Date: 27 April 2015           Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

Counsel: None

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:		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)		AR20150001024



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1