IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 June 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140005890 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 honorable. 2. The applicant describes and states, in pertinent part and in effect, the events surrounding his deployment from 2003 through 2004 and the subsequent Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosis after he returned from Iraq. When he was held in the CQ area without any medication or mental health assistance, he went AWOL to self-medicate. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 1 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 31 August 2005 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: 588th Maintenance Co, Fort Sill, OK f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 28 February 2002, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 3 months, 12 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 3 months, 12 days i. Time Lost: 81 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 27M, Multiple Launch Rocket System Repairer (per DA Form 2-1) and 35P, Cryptologic Linguist (per AWOL Returnee Interview Report) m. GT Score: 91 n. Education: GED o. Overseas Service: None (NIF) p. Combat Service: None (NIF) q. Decorations/Awards: None 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 28 February 2002, for a period of 4 years. He was 21 years old at the time of entry and had a General Equivalency Diploma (GED). His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. He completed 3 years, 3 months, and 12 days of active duty and credible federal service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s disciplinary history includes accrual of 81 days of time lost for being AWOL from 15 January 2005 until he surrendered to military authorities on 6 April 2005. 2. On 14 April 2005, 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 14 April 2005, 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 (UOTHC) 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 22 July 2005, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and issued a UOTHC Discharge Certificate. 5. On 31 August 2005, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 3 years, 3 months, and 12 days of creditable active military service, 140 days of excess leave (from 14 April 2005 to 31 August 2005), and accrued 81 days of time lost due to being AWOL from 15 January 2005 to 5 April 2005, when he surrendered to military authorities on 6 April 2005. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. The applicant’s available record does not show any recorded actions under the UCMJ or any negative counseling statements. However, he was addressed during the referral of his court-martial charge as a PVT/E-1 and the action that caused his reduction is not contained in the service record. 2. Memorandum, dated 14 April 2005, subject: AWOL/Deserter Returnee Interview Report, indicates the applicant received two previous FG Article 15 actions and the reason for his AWOL, “Too (sic) much bullshit to deal with. Some NCOs don’t take care of Soldiers. Depression [and] post traumatic stress disorder,” and that he had seen his chain of command and mental health prior to going AWOL. 3. Report of Return of Absentee, dated 3 March 2005 (sic), indicates the applicant surrendered to military authorities on 6 April 2005. 4. A continuation sheet of an Article 15, undated (the first page is not available), lists the following offenses: a. violations of Article 91, UCMJ, being disrespectful in language towards an NCO on two separate occasions (041014 and 040923); b. violations of Article 86, failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on two separate occasions (041014 and 041004); and c. violation of Article 89, UCMJ, behaving and being disrespectful in language toward a superior commissioned officer (041012). 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 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 he was having mental health issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. 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 he was diagnosed with PTSD upon returning from a deployment. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 6. The applicant contends he served a combat tour. The applicant’s DD Form 214 does not provide that information nor does the DD Form 214 provide any information of his MOS, awards earned, or the period of any foreign service. However, such requests for changes to the DD Form 214 do not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 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: 10 June 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) AR20140005890 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1