1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 20 May 2015 b. Date Received: 26 May 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he went AWOL due to his unit refusing to allow him to seek medical treatment for his Graves’ disease, which he was diagnosed with in July 2000. The applicant states that he was told it was life threating if untreated. After being denied treatment, the applicant was sent to the field for training exercises, where he passed out and was taken to the hospital for treatment. After being released from the hospital, the applicant was told he was going back to the field the next day. The applicant states that he went AWOL that night, thinking he had no other choice. When he returned, the applicant was sent to be discharged; however, his unit wanted to court-martial him. The applicant contends that once he returned to his unit to await his trial, he was harassed and threatened daily. He was told by his unit that the only way to get out of the unit was to take a Chapter 10. Because of his discharge, the applicant and his wife are unable to adopt a child. The applicant is not requesting an honorable discharge, but does request a general discharge. Note: The records indicate that the applicant had a prior records review on 20 February 2009. The Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 December 2016, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant’s length and quality of service, his personal testimony, post-service accomplishments, and circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. capricious & arbitrary actions by the chain of command). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions). The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. (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: 10 July 2001 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): NIF / Of note, Memorandum, dated 29 June 2001, written by the Acting Staff Judge Advocate and addressed to the Separation Authority, reflects the applicant was charged with one specification of desertion and one specification of uttering bad checks. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 24 April 2001 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 29 June 2001 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 June 1999 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 107 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11H10, Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons Infantryman / 3 years, 3 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 5 August 1997 to 22 June 1999 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: NIF f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Two DA Forms 4187, dated 11 August and 8 September 2000, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed from “Present for Duty” to “AWOL,” effective 9 August 2000, and from “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls,” effective 8 September 2000. Report of Return of Absentee, reflects on 13 March 2001, the applicant was apprehended by civilian authorities, while in a deserter status and returned to military control. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 229 days (AWOL, 9 August 2000 - 23 March 2001) / Apprehended by civil authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application and a Medical statement, dated 23 April 2001. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation (AR) 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. AR 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should be retained on active duty. 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. The applicant contends that his medical issues contributed to his discharge from the Army. The applicant provided a medical statement to support his contention. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that medical statement was part of his separation packet and was reviewed by the separation authority at the time of his separation. Further, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial,” and the separation code is “KFS.” Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends that he was harrased and threatened daily once he returned to his unit to await his trial. 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. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional documents and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted no additional documents or contentions. b. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 December 2016, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant’s length and quality of service, his personal testimony, post-service accomplishments, and circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. capricious & arbitrary actions by the chain of command). Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general (under honorable conditions). The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General (Under Honorable Conditions) 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 NCO – Noncommissioned Officer 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 NOS – Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA – Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150009183 4