IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 November 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140000133 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he is requesting an upgrade because he was mentally unstable and could not be released from AIT. He began treatment for PTSD and told all of his superiors about his problems. He was having coping issues and no one took him seriously. This is all documented in the files from the out-patient medical files from the off-post mental health clinic. He had a couple of physical issues that were being treated as well that got progressively worse until he completely lost his hearing. Now he needs corrective surgery on his feet. When he was taken to Fort Sill for discharge, they asked him if he wanted to stay in or leave; however, he didn’t know what to do, so he left. He has been told by former military Soldiers that he can request an upgrade to get a better job. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 30 December 2013 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 21 April 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, 1st Battalion, 13th Aviation Regiment, Fort Rucker, AL f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 20 April 2001, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 4 months, 18 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 4 months, 18 days i. Time Lost: 224 days, AWOL (020415-021124) j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: None m. GT Score: 110 n. Education: GED 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: None SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 April 2001, for a period of 4 years. He was 25 years old and had a high school equivalency (GED). He was training at Fort Rucker, AL, at the time he went AWOL. His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievements. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s disciplinary history includes accrual of 282 days of time lost for being AWOL from 15 April 2002 until his apprehension by the civilian authorities on 25 November 2002. 2. On 4 December 2002, a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) based on the AWOL offense outlined in the preceding paragraph. On 5 December 2002, 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 him. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 3. In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged that by submitting the request for discharge he was admitting he was guilty of the charge against him or of a lesser-included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge. He also confirmed his understanding that if his request for discharge was approved, he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He further stated he understood that receipt of an under other than honorable conditions discharge could result in his being deprived of many or all Army benefits, his possible ineligibility for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under State and Federal laws. The applicant confirmed he had no desire to perform further military service and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 4. On 21 March 2003, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued a UOTHC Discharge Certificate. 5. On 21 April 2003, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 1 year, 4 months and 18 days of creditable active military service and accrued 224 days of time lost due to being AWOL. The applicant also had 137 days of excess leave (021206-030421). EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Three DA Forms 4187, dated 16 April 2002, 16 May 2002, and 10 December 2002, showing the applicant’s duty status changed from present for duty to AWOL, to DFR, to return to duty after apprehension, respectively. 2. DD Form 458, charge sheet, dated 4 December 2002. 3. There are no negative counseling statements or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided an online DD Form 293 and DD Form 214 with his application. 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. Chapter10 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’s request for an upgrade of his characterization was carefully considered. 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 UOTHC 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 at the time of discharge and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general discharge at this late date. 4. The applicant contends that he was mentally unstable and could not be released from AIT. He began treatment for PTSD and told all of his superiors about his problems. He was having coping issues and no one took him seriously. This is all documented in the files from the out-patient medical files from the off-post mental health clinic. Also he had a couple of physical issues that were being treated as well that got progressively worse until he completely lost his hearing. The applicant’s contentions are noted; however, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. 5. In addition, the applicant’s record does not show any evidence that he sought relief from his medical issues through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. 6. The applicant contends he needs corrective surgery on his feet. Eligibility for veteran's benefits 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. 7. The applicant contends he was told by former military Soldiers that he can request an upgrade so he can get a better job. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 8. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 9. Therefore, the reason for the discharge and 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: 19 November 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) AR20140000133 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1