IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 June 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140008920 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 of his under other than honorable conditions discharge characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was unfair and improper because he served nine years and seven months with only one incident. He states, he was never convicted of any crime at the time of his discharge. He served with honor and distinction and he believes he deserve the benefits he earned. He states, he has various injuries and conditions to include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). He contends he is not able to receive proper counseling and treatment due to his discharge. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 22 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 21 January 2014 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, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, Fort Drum, NY f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 10 December 2012/5 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 1 month, 12 days h. Total Service: 10 years, 3 months, 6 days i. Time Lost: 4 days j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 031016-040211, NA RA, 040212-050814, HD RA, 050815-121209, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-5 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10, Infantryman m. GT Score: 93 n. Education: GED o. Overseas Service: SWA, Korea p. Combat Service: Iraq (070810-080628), (091028-101015) q. Decorations/Awards: ICM-3CS, ARCOM-3, AAM-4, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NOPDR, OSR-3, CIB, EIB 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 12 February 2004, for a period of 3 years. He was 22 years old at the time of entry and had a General Equivalency Diploma (GED). His last reenlistment was 10 December 2012, for a period of 5 years. He served in Iraq and Korea, earned three ARCOMs, four AAMs, a CIB, and an EIB, and completed 10 years, 3 months, and 6 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Drum, NY. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) which indicates that on 30 October 2013, the applicant was charged with the following offenses: a. failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (130618) b. being AWOL (130628-130701) c. falsifying a signature on an official record (130726) 2. On 12 November 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 4 December 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 21 January 2014, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 5. The applicant’s record of service indicates 4 days of time lost for being AWOL from 28 June 2013 until 1 July 2013. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. DA Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 30 October 2013. 2. Four NCOERs covering the period of 1 July 2010 through 20 January 2013. The applicant received a “Fully Capable” assessment from his raters and two “2/2” and two “3/2” ratings from his senior raters for his “Overall Performance/Overall Potential.” EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 9 May 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 and the issue 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 his discharge is unjust and improper because he served for over nine years with honor and distinction. However, the applicant willingly and knowingly requested to be discharged from the Army in lieu of a trial by court-martial for the offenses he committed. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct that led to the applicant requesting to be discharged from the service under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. 5. The applicant contends he has various injuries to include PTSD and TBI and is not able to receive the proper counseling and treatment he deserves. However, the service record contains no evidence of a PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, 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. 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: 19 June 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 2 No Change: 3 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) AR20140008920 Page 2 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1