1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 August 2016 b. Date Received: 13 September 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 pertinent part and in effect, about 17 years ago, he made an immature choice that resulted in significant consequence. The reason for his absence began while stationed with the 75th Ranger Regiment awaiting eligibility for the Ranger Indoctrination; wherein, issues with family health and relationship developed. He spoke with the chaplain and his command in attempts to find a way to take care of the issues without avail, including a request for entry-level separation. However, the issues led to his transfer to the 82nd Division, and they instead unfortunately worsened. Upon his unsuccessful attempts to address his issues, he made the decision to go absent without leave. Upon clearing up the family health issues and returning to the unit some weeks later, he was directed to a room, and advised he would be processed out of the military for his infraction. Unofficially, he was informed that it was a done deal based upon his absence and he was left without direction or advisement. With the assumption that was the case, he left Fort Bragg and returned home under the assumption that his AWOL would be processed in absentia, but it was clearly not the case, as he returned in 2003 to properly be discharged. Given his initial request for an entry-level separation was within the six-month window, in his distraught at the time of decision making, and the fact no ill-will or arm was meant by his poor and immature decisions, he asks his character be taken into account in consideration of the discharge. He has since completed both bachelor and master's degrees, served as a volunteer emergency medical technician for his community for multiple years and in general, he has been a highly productive and contributing member to the community. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 1 November 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: 27 October 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 25 September 2003, the following charge was preferred, with recommendations to refer to trial by a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge: Charge: Violation of Article 85, UCMJ, for absenting himself from his unit without authority on 27 April 1999, with intent to remain absent and remained absent in desertion until 8 September 2003. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 25 September 2003 (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: 12 October 2003 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 30 July 1998 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 129 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 11B1P, Infantryman / 9 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Return of Absentee, dated 6 September 2003, indicates the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities on 6 September 2003. Charge Sheet described at the preceding paragraph 3c(1). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 1,595 days (AWOL: 27 April 1999 to 7 September 2003) / Apprehended by civil authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application, dated 25 August 2016. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, he has since completed both bachelor and master's degrees, served as a volunteer emergency medical technician for his community for multiple years and in general, he has been a highly productive and contributing member to the community. 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. 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." The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 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 available record of service and the issues 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. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and he indicated he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran's benefits. 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. Hrecord 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. The applicant contends that he was young and made an immature choice of going AWOL which led to his discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. In consideration of the applicant's post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re- characterization 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 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 1 November 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160015026 1