IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 6 May 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140004758 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 general, under honorable conditions or honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he served his sentence for going AWOL. He is having many issues dealing with everyday life and cannot afford to get help for psychological and social problems. An upgrade would allow him to receive his VA benefits to get the help he needs. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 11 March 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 16 November 2012 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: SPC, USAPCF, Fort Knox, KY f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 5 October 2006, 6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 4 month, 26 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 11 months, 14 days i. Time Lost: 1,721 days j. Previous Discharges: RA (050317-061004) / HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 21B10, Combat Engineer m. GT Score: 98 n. Education: GED o. Overseas Service: SWA, Alaska p. Combat Service: Iraq (NIF) q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM; ASR; CAB r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 March 2005, and reenlisted on 5 October 2006, for a period of 6 years. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED). He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 21B10, Combat Engineer. He served in Iraq and Alaska. His record documents no other acts of valor or significant achievement. He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 14 days of active duty and creditable federal service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s disciplinary history includes accrual of 429 days of time lost for being AWOL from 20 March 2011, until his apprehension by civil authorities on 16 May 2012. (Note that the total time lost differs from the dates on DD Form 214.) 2. On 31 May 2012, 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 31 May 2012, 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. In an undated memorandum, 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 16 November 2012, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 2 years, 11 months and 14 days of creditable active military service with 169 days of excess leave from 1 June 2012 through 16 November 2012. The record also shows he accrued 1,721 days of time lost due to being AWOL or military confinement for the period 6 August 2007 through 15 September 2007, and 17 October 2007 through 22 May 2012. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Charge Sheet indicates on 31 May 2012, a charge of violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL (110320-120516) was preferred. 2. Memorandum, dated 31 May 2012, subject: Admission of AWOL for Administrative Purposes provides the applicant’s admission to being AWOL from 20 March 2011 through 16 May 2012. 3. Report of Return of Absentee, dated 16 May 2012, indicates the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control. 4. Charge Sheet indicates on 9 September 2011, two charges of violating Article 85 and 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL (110909, 110320) with intent to remain absent were preferred. 5. Three DA Forms 4187, Personnel Action, indicates the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: a. dated 24 May 2012, from DFR to Attached/PDY, effective 23 May 2012; b. dated 9 September 2011, from AWOL to DFR, effective 9 September 2011; and c. dated 19 August 2011, from PDY to AWOL, effective 20 March 2011. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided none. 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 the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service and the issues 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 an upgrade of his discharge would allow him to receive veterans’ benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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. Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of attaining veterans’ benefits. 5. The applicant contends he needs help for his psychological and social issues. However, the service record contains no evidence of a mental health diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 6. 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 statement alone is not sufficient evidence and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., documentary evidence such as medical records showing any mental health issues that existed at the time of his discharge or the result of his active duty service), for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record or with the applicant’s submitted evidence. 7. 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: 6 May 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) AR20140004758 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1