1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 8 May 2016 b. Date Received: 11 May 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his personal relationship issues and accusations of being a pedophile negatively affected his outlook on the military. He no longer felt the military was for him and that his personal issues were going to drag himself and the military down, as well as waste his comrades’ time. According to the applicant, all of the charges were thrown out but the court martial was going to proceed. It was at that time, the applicant decided that a Chapter 10 would be best. Since his discharge, he has been working at a farming supply store. He is unable to use his G.I. Bill benefits or get a better job due to his discharge. The applicant states that he lives a simple and clean life with his adoptive father and siblings in a four bedroom house located in an extremely rural area. Both his father and brother are disabled; therefore, he and his brother’s girlfriend are the only ones bringing in income. Life has been difficult. The applicant has a herniated lower back, so his physical job has taken a toll on him. The applicant states, he has made some bad decisions and was unwise. If given an upgrade, the applicant plans on giving back to the country he served. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses. Treatment for Adjustment Disorder throughout 2010-2014 in response to stress related to investigations. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 September 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: 12 February 2015 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 23 January 2015. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 120, Rape, Sexual Assault, and other Sexual Misconduct (with three specifications) Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 128, Assault (with one specification) (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 January 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 6 February 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 9 December 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 21 / GED / 109 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 25U10, Signal Support Systems Specialist / 8 years, 6 months, and 4 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: RA, 9 August 2006 – 8 December 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (21 September 2008 – 31 August 2009) and Kuwait (10 October 2012 – 7 October 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-2CS, AAM-2, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWTSM, GWTEM, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: CID Report of Investigation, dated 15 December 2014, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for engaging in several inappropriate relationships with minors. The investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Aggravated Sexual Assault. It also determined the applicant did not commit the offense of Possession of Child Pornography and Enticing a Child to Commit a Lewd Act as originally reported. DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 24 December 2014, reflects the applicant was charged with violation of the UCMJ, Articles 120 and 128. DA Form 4833 (Commander’s Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action), dated 30 April 2015, reflect charges were preferred against the applicant on 24 December 2014 for violation of Articles 120 and 128. The applicant received a Discharge in Lieu of Court-Marital pursuant to AR 635-200, Chapter 10, effective 6 February 2015, with a characterization of Other Than Honorable Discharge. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 8 May 2016; self-authored statement; and DD Form 214. 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 that 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 requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 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 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. The applicant contends that all of the charges were thrown out but the court martial was going to proceed, which is when he decided a Chapter 10 would be best. 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 applicant has expressed his desire to rejoin the Service, to have better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. At the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is not eligible to reenlist. Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 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 7 September 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 VA - Veterans Affair ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20160009202 4