IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 June 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140010179 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 discharge characterization from under other than honorable conditions to general, under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he was told several times nothing was wrong with his knee; after three months of continuous failing the pt test, he was mentally and physically broken, he went AWOL. Since being discharged he worked hard to be a great role model to his family and serve his community. He needs an upgrade to continue serving his community and become a level 1 reserve deputy. His discharge status is not an accurate representation of his character or the person he worked to become. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 9 June 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 10 November 2004 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: B Co, 43rd Adjutant General Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, MO f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 7 April 2004, 5 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 5 months, 17 days h. Total Service: 5 months, 17 days i. Time Lost: 47 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-1 l. Military Occupational Specialty: None m. GT Score: 86 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: None r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: No t. Counseling Statements: No u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 April 2004, for a period of 5 years. He was 21 years old at the time of entry and a HS Graduate. His record did not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements. He was in initial entry training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO when he went AWOL; he was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to duty at Fort Sill, OK where his discharge was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 29 July 2004, the applicant was charged with being AWOL (040601-040718). 2. On 30 July 2004, 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 in his own behalf. The unit commander recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 13 October 2004, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 4. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 10 November 2004, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, by reason of in lieu of trial by court-martial, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of KFS and an RE code of 4. 5. The applicant’s record of service indicates 47 days of time lost for being AWOL from 1 June 2004 until 17 July 2004. He was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to duty at Fort Sill, OK. Also, he had 104 days of excess leave from 30 July 2004 until 10 November 2004. 6. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of any actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or negative counseling statements. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Three DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 2 June 2004 and 5 August 2004, showing the applicant’s present for duty, AWOL and dropped from rolls and returned to military control dates. 2. A DD Forms 553 (Deserter/Absentee Wanted by the Armed Forces), dated 2 June 2004 indicating the applicant was wanted as a deserter. 3. A DD Form 616 (Report of Return of Absentee) dated 18 July 2004, shows the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities and transferred to military control. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, self-authored statement, four support statements, and a DD Form 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant stated in his application he was a volunteer firefighter for three years for Fruitland Fire Department. He coached youth sports for five years with the Payette County Recreation Department. He is a volunteer firefighter for the Council Fire Department and reserve Deputy Sheriff for the Adams County Sheriff Department. 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. 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. 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. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. 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, his military records, the issues and documents 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 told several times nothing was wrong with his knee; after three months of continuously failing the pt test, he was mentally and physically broken, he went AWOL. He had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, 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 further contends since being discharged, he has worked hard to be a great role model to his family and serve his community. The applicant is to be commended for his effort. This contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. 6. The applicant also contends he needs an upgrade to continue serving his community and become a level 1 reserve deputy. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 7. The applicant additionally contends his discharge status is not an accurate representation of his character or the person he worked to become. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The characterization of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 8. The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. 9. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s performance and his good conduct after leaving the Army. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant’s chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 10. Therefore, the reason and characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 3 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) AR20140010179 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1