1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 16 May 2015 b. Date Received: 22 May 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he got hurt during a training exercise due to carrying a nearly 300 pound Soldier up some stairs. He was not allowed to go to the hospital; he was returned to CTMC for broken Soldiers. He tried going through the proper channels to get help, even the chaplain but could not get any help. He was left in a poor state of mind with all the pain, so he sought help the only way he knew in his befuddled pain numbed state of mind. He is unemployed and having difficulty finding any job he can do with this persistent issue. He desires to return to the military and serve his country again. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 August 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 17 October 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: The applicant voluntarily requested a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under AR 635-200, Chapter 10, on 9 August 2007. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, AWOL (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 9 August 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 25 September 2007 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 16 January 2007 / 16 weeks / OIADT b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 21 / GED / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-1 / None / 8 months and 20 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: USAR, 16 December 2006-15 January 2007 / NA (Concurrent Service) e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Three DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated between 25 June 2007 and 7 August 2007, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: from “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 23 June 2007; from “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective 23 July 2007; and from “DFR” to “Attached / PDY,” effective 5 August 2007. DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 9 August 2007, reflects the applicant was charged with violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, AWOL. i. Lost Time: 42 days (AWOL, 23 June 2007 - 4 August 2007 64 days (Excess Leave, 10 August 2007 - 12 October 2007) j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two Online applications, dated 16 May 2015; DD Form 214; and the following: Trainee Sick Slip, dated 6 March 2007; Bone Scan Patient Instructions, dated 15 March 2007; DA Form 31, dated 21 March 2007; The Orthopaedio Center of the Southeast Fax coversheet; Wellmont Health System Radiology Report, dated 26 February 2010; Holston Medical Group documents (15 pages); Fort Dearborn Life Insurance Company document, dated 16 February 2010; and, State of Tennessee, Department of Labor and Workforce Development Separation Notice. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): 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 although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): 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. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 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 a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge by the separation authority at the time of his discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, he got hurt during a training exercise due to carrying an almost 300 pound Soldier up some stairs; he was not allowed to go to the hospital; he was returned to CTMC for broken Soldiers. The service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant further contends, he tried going through the proper channels to get help, even the chaplain but could not get any help and was left in a poor state of mind with all the pain; he sought help the only way he knew in his befuddled pain numbed state of mind. At the time of discharge, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Further, the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant is unemployed and having difficulty finding any job he can do with this persistent issue. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant desires to return to the military and serve his country again. Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 August 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: NA AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: 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 BH – Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police – PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150009097 4