IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 4 February 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140003618 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 an upgrade to honorable of his under other than honorable conditions characterization. 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. The applicant states, in effect, he was going through a medical board at the time of his discharge and was in his first enlistment. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 24 February 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 25 April 2013 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: 154th Transportation Company, Fort Hood, TX f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 3 December 2008/NIF g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years, 4 months, 23 days h. Total Service: 6 years, 10 months, 20 days i. Time Lost: 155 days j. Previous Discharges: RA 060606-081202, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-5 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 88M20, Motor Transport Operator m. GT Score: 111 n. Education: Associates Degree o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Iraq, 080309-090314 q. Decorations/Awards: ICM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ASR, OSR r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 June 2006, for a period of 4 years. He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Iraq and earned an ARCOM and two AAMs. He completed 6 years, 10 months, 20 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Hood, TX. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 2 February 2013, the applicant was charged with the following offenses: a. being AWOL from 2 July 2012 until 17 December 2012, b. disrespecting a commissioned officer x 2 (120514x2), c. wrongful use of cocaine (121210-121217), d. communicating a threat towards a commissioned officer (120514). 2. On 2 April 2013, 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. 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 and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 8 April 2013, 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 25 April 2013, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 5. The applicant’s record of service indicates 155 days of time lost for being AWOL from 2 July 2012 until his apprehension on 16 December 2012. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There is one positive urinalysis report contained in the record: IO, Inspection Other, 17 December 2012, cocaine. 2. Several negative counseling statements, dated between 2 February 2012 and 10 January 2013, for a positive urinalysis, failing to report to his appointed place of duty, dereliction of duty, indebtedness, failing to obtain/possess his TA-50, failing to report to duty and formation, failing to obey orders, revocation of his off-post privileges, and threatening and disrespecting medical staff and a commissioned officer. 3. DA Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 1 February 2013, charged the applicant with being AWOL, disrespect towards an officer on two occasions, wrongful use of cocaine, and communicating a threat to a commissioned officer. 4. Two DA Forms 4197 (Personnel Action), dated 2 August 2012 and 17 December 2012, reflect the applicant’s duty status change. 5. A memorandum, dated 25 January 2013, dismissed charges against the applicant prior to 20 December 2012 without prejudice due to his duty status changing from dropped from rolls/AWOL to present for duty. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 31 January 2014 and a DD Form 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any in support of his 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 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 service record 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 he was going through a medical board at the time of his discharge. However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted. 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. Further, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. 5. 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: 4 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) AR20140003618 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1