Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2010/07/14 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that she went AWOL out of fear of being hurt by an NCO. The events that took place were reported but nothing was done. She experienced being harassed and decided to go AWOL and she was afraid to return for the fear of being punished and stayed gone for 16 years. She now receives counseling for PTSD which she believes was developed out of her experience in the Army. She requests an upgrade to honorable. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 061030 Discharge Received: Date: 061206 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: HSC, 10th S&T Bn, Fort Drum, NY Time Lost: 5,966 days, AWOL (900621-061024), apprehended. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 41 Current ENL Date: 981025 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 09Mos, 08Days Includes 37 days of excess leave (061031-061206) Total Service: 01 Yrs, 09Mos, 08Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 92G10/Food Svc Ops Spc GT: 108 EDU: HS Equivalency Overseas: Germany Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Bronx, NY Post Service Accomplishments: None listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 30 October 2006, the applicant was charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) from 21 June 21990 until she was apprehended on 25 October 2006. On 30 October 2006, 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. Further, the applicant indicated that she understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and the discharge would have a significant effect on her eligibility for veteran’s benefits. The applicant did not submit any statements in her own behalf. The unit commander recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 30 October 2006, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation 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. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The applicant consulted with defense counsel, and voluntarily in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated or lesser-included offenses under the UCMJ. The analyst noted that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. The applicant contends that she went AWOL because she was afraid after being harassed by an NCO. However, 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 bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that she was harassed or treated unfairly. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and she has not provided any documentation or further evidence in support of her contention. Furthermore, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Additionally, the record does not support the issue that the applicant suffered from any medical condition when she decided to go AWOL. Upon her return she had an opportunity to submit a statement in her behalf but chose not do it. The analyst determined that the discharge was not as a result of any medical condition. Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 6 April 2011 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: VA treatment record, letter of support, a self-authored statement. VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army X. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court Martial BCD Bad Conduct Discharge GD General Discharge NIF Not in the file SPCM Special Court Martial CG Company Grade Article 15 HD Honorable Discharge OAD Ordered to Active Duty UNC Uncharacterized Discharge DD Dishonorable Discharge HS High School Graduate OMPF Official Military Personnel File UOTH Under Other Than Honorable FG Field Grade Article 15 IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE Reentry Code Conditions ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20100019115 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages