1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 April 2016 b. Date Received: 19 April 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that his discharge was the result of being diagnosed with testicular cancer. He contends he felt overwhelmed, scared, and alone. His initial instinct was to flee because of his fear, as if running and hiding from it would solve his problem. He ignored his duties and his chain of commands orders to return. On 17 May 2002, he returned to the Oncology department at the University of Arizona where they surgically removed his tumor. In July 2003 he regained contact with the Army, and was able to return to his post on 20 August 2003, he accepted his disciplinary actions and was convinced by the rear defense commander that a separation from service was in his best interest rather than face a jury of his pears though he truly would not understand the impact of this for a few more years. It was not until he returned to the military in 2006 and had to explain to a review board his account of events. Upon review he was accepted into the National Guard where he served until 2014. His request is to increase his status to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, although he realizes he needs to be held accountable for his actions. However, based on the fact that he returned on his own accord, and that he received discipline for these actions, he believes there were monumental reasoning behind his actions. He believes a change in his discharge would show that even though he may have faced a giant, he was at some point able to redeem himself and come back and face the challenges as a Soldier and served an additional period of service with pride. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 July 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, severe family matters, and circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. cancer treatment and divorce), and as a result it is inequitable. 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. This action entails restoration of grade/rank to E-4/SPC. (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: 19 October 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date Charges Were Preferred: 25 July 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) which indicated on 25 July 2003, the applicant was charged with being absent from his unit from 30 November 2001 until his return on 8 July 2003. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 September 2003 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 September 2003 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 July 2001 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 29 / HS Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 77F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 8 years, 3 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 2 December 1993 to 28 March 1996 / HD USARCG, 29 March 1996 to 29 August 1999 / NA ARNG, 30 August 1999 to 4 July 2001 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Vincenza, Italy / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 587 days (30 November 2001 to 8 July 2003) / apprehended by the local authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; NGB Form 22, dated 4 July 2001; DD Form's 214, dated 19 October 2003 and 30 November 2010; NCO Evaluation Report's dated between 31 October 2007 and 15 November 2011; and medical document's from KINO Community Hospital, Tucson, AZ. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Evidence in the records shows the applicant served in the Army National Guard during the period of 14 February 2006 until 19 June 2014, at which time he was discharged with a characterization of service of honorable, under the provisions of NGR 600-20, 6-36s, with placement on the permanent disability retired list. 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 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 an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. All requirements of law and regulation were meet 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 significant achievement and valor; however, it did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending that his discharge was the result of being diagnosed with testicular cancer and his state of mind caused him to become overwhelmed, scared, and alone. The applicant contentions were noted; however, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his actions at the time of discharge. The applicant contends after going AWOL, he regained contact in July 2003 with the Army, and was able to return to his post on 20 August 2003, he accepted his disciplinary actions and was convinced by the rear defense commander that a separation from service was in his best interest rather than face a jury of his peers although he truly would not understand the impact of this for a few more years. However, as noted in his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court- martial he was advised of his rights and the implication that were attached to his request, and he acknowledged that he understand the elements of the offenses. He indicated that he had been advised and understand the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He also contends he returned to the military in 2006 and had to explain to a review board his account of events. Upon review he was accepted into the National Guard where he served until 2014. His request is to increase his status to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, he realizes he needs to be held accountable for his actions. However, based on the fact that he returned on his own accord, and that he received discipline for these actions, he believes there were monumental reasoning behind his actions. He believes a change in his discharge would show that even though he may have faced a giant, he was at some point able to redeem himself and come back and face the challenges as a Soldier and served an additional period of service with pride. The applicant's post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application and the applicant is to be commended on his accomplishments. However, 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 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 12 July 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, severe family matters, and circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. cancer treatment and divorce), and as a result it is inequitable. 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. This action entails restoration of grade/rank to E-4/SPC. 10. 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 Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change f. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: E-4/SPC 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 AR20160008449 1