IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 25 February 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140002508 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 to upgrade the characterization of his service from under other than honorable to fully honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, it has been ten years since his discharge. He was misguided in his final actions and has realized the error of the events which led to his separation. He was a young man who made a mistake. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 3 February 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 10 December 2001 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: 252nd Sig Co, 63rd Sig Bn, Fort Gordon, GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 31 October 1997, 6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 7 months, 3 day h. Total Service: 6 years, 8 months, 1 day i. Time Lost: 190 days j. Previous Discharges: RA (941003-971030) / HD 03-00-28 k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-5 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 31R1P, Multichannel Transmission Systems Operator/Maintainer m. GT Score: 115 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Panama p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: AGCM; NDSM; NPDR; ASR; OSR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 October 1994, and reenlisted on 31 October 1997, for a period of 6 years. He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31R1P, Multichannel Transmission Systems Operator/Maintainer. He served in Panama. His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. He completed 6 years, 8 months, and 1 day of active duty and federal creditable service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s disciplinary history includes accrual of 190 days of time lost for being AWOL from 5 February 2000, until his apprehension by civil authorities on 10 August 2000. 2. On 17 August 2000, 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 17 August 2000, 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 for the good of the service 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 28 November 2001, 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 10 December 2001, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 6 years, 8 months and 1 day of creditable active military service The record also shows 480 days of excess leave from 18 August 2000 through 10 December 2001. 6. The applicant's record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 5 February 2000 through 9 August 2000, for a total of 190 days of time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Charge sheet described at the preceding paragraphs 1 and 2. 2. Report of Return of Absentee, dated 11 August 2000, indicates the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control on 10 August 2000. 3. Personnel Action form, dated 6 March 2000, indicates the applicant’s duty status changed from AWOL to DFR, effective 6 March 2000. 4. Personnel Action form, dated 9 February 2000, indicates the applicant’s duty status changed from PDY to AWOL, effective 5 February 2000. 5. There is no negative counseling statement or any action under the UCMJ. 6. An NCOER as an “Annual” report, covering the period of June 1998 to May 1999. The applicant was rated as “Fully Capable” and received 4/3 from the senior rater. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided his discharge orders; a copy of his SGLI election and certificate; and DA Form 2-1, Personnel Qualification Record, dated 17 December 1998. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant provided none. 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. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. 5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of his characterization and a change to the reentry code 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 that he was misguided in his final actions and has realized the error of the events which led to his separation. However, he 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 contends that it has been 10 years since his discharge and he was young when he made his mistakes. However, 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 their military service. 6. 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: Records Review Date: 25 February 2015 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) AR20140002508 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1