1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 January 2016 b. Date Received: 28 January 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was based solely on his dating a young lady of a different race that was in the same platoon as him, which triggered the company commander to pursue adverse actions on him. The applicant alleges that once the young lady got out of the military due to pregnancy of his child, the commander continued to pursue the applicant. The applicant further alleges that once he found out that the commander was threatening Soldiers in the unit to tell lies about him, he felt it was best that he request an under other than honorable conditions discharge since he was told the commander was going to destroy his career. The applicant states that he received positive feedback throughout his career from his peers, subordinates, and supervisors. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 April 2017, 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: 2 July 2001 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 8 May 2001, reflects the applicant was charged with violation of the UCMJ, Articles 92 and 134. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, Failure to Obey Order or Regulation (with three specifications) On diverse occasions between 10 March 1999 and 1 May 2000, at or near Fort Hood, Texas and Camp Doha, Kuwait, violated a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-14b, Army Regulation 600-20, by wrongfully engaging in a dating and sexual relationship with Specialist N.S; On diverse occasions between 10 March 1999 and 18 October 2000, at or near Fort Hood, Texas and Camp Doha, Kuwait, violated a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4- 14b, Army Regulation 600-20, by wrongfully engaging in a dating and sexual relationship with Specialist M.S; On diver's occasions between 1 April 2000 and 31 January 2001, at or near Fort Hood, Texas, violated a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-14b, Army Regulation 600-20, by wrongfully engaging in a sexual relationship with Specialist W.W.; Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, Adultery (with six specifications) ` Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, at or near Fort Hood, Texas and Camp Doha, Kuwait, on diver's occasions on or between 10 March 1999 and 4 November 1999, wrongfully had sexual intercourse with Specialist N.S., a woman not his wife; At or near Fort Hood, Texas and Camp Doha, Kuwait, on diver's occasions on or between 10 March 1999 and 1 May 2000, knowingly fraternize with Specialist N.S., and enlisted person, on terms of military equality, to wit; the applicant engaged in a dating and sexual relationship with Specialist S. in violation of the custom of the United States Army that noncommissioned officers shall not fraternize with enlisted persons on terms of military equality; The applicant, a married man, did at or near Fort Hood, Texas, on divers occasions on or between 10 March 1999 and 31 December 1999, wrongfully had sexual intercourse with Specialist M.S., a woman not his wife; The applicant, did at or near Fort Hood, Texas, on divers occasions on or between 10 March 1999 and 18 October 2000, knowingly fraternized with Specialist M.S., an enlisted person, on terms of military equality, to wit: the applicant engaged in a dating and sexual relationship with Specialist Savage in violation of the custom of the United States Army that noncommissioned officers shall not fraternize with enlisted persons on terms of military equality; The applicant, did at or near Fort Hood, Texas, on divers occasions on or between 1 April 2000 and 31 January 2001, wrongfully had sexual intercourse with Specialist W.W., a married woman not his wife; and The applicant, did at or near Fort Hood, Texas, on diver's occasions on or between 1 April 2000 and 31 January 2001, knowingly fraternized with Specialist W.W., an enlisted person, on terms of military equality, to wit: the applicant engaged in a dating and sexual relationship with Specialist W., in violation of the custom of the United States Army that noncommissioned officers shall not fraternized with enlisted persons on terms of military equality. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 30 May 2001 (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 1 June 2001 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 November 1998 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist, 31U10, Signal Support Systems Specialist / 12 years, 8 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 25 October 1988 to 24 October 1991 / HD USAR, 25 October 1991 to 29 March 1995 / NIF RA, 30 March 1995 to 17 November 1997 / HD RA, 18 November 1997 to 17 November 1998 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Kuwait (dates unknown) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-5, AGCM-2, NDSM, AFEM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: September 1997 thru December 1997, Fully Capable January 1998 thru December 1998, Fully Capable January 1999 thru December 1999, Among the Best January 2000 thru December 2000, Among the Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and a character reference letter. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): 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. 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. 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service, the documents and the issues submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of several offenses 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 several acts of achievement however, it appears they did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant contends that he discharged solely based on the fact that he was dating a young lady that was of a different race, basically discriminated by his commander. 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. Furthermore, 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant contends he received positive feedback throughout his career from his peers, subordinates, and supervisors. 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 and the applicant is to be commended. However, it appears this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant a characterization of honorable or general (under honorable conditions) at the time of discharge as shown by the multiple incidents of misconduct by the applicant. 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 19 April 2017, 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 / Issue a New Separation Order: 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: No Change Authenticating Official: 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 AR20160003170 1