1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 3 February 2016 b. Date Received: 10 February 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); a restoration of his rank; and, be allowed to finish his initial TPU contract. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, at the time of his misconduct, his family was his main objection. After reporting to his new unit, his family care plan became unworkable, because his fiancé no longer wanted to live in New York. The applicant informed his chain of command, but he was informed that they were unable to help. He tried to get a compassionate reassignment, but he was told he was not eligible. He then attempted to change his work hours to allow him to attend to his children. He ultimately requested a discharge under hardship, but his request was denied. After this, his began receiving counseling statements for anything his command could dig up. Within two months of his family care plan becoming invalid, he received a demotion and multiple counseling statements. The applicant states the counseling statements were embellished in an attempt to give the appearance that he was a poor Soldier. The only help he received was a referral to the Veterans' One Stop, which was able to help him with financial needs. After six months of being scolded and harassed about his performance, he decided to bring the issue up with his battalion commander. The applicant states this effort was useless as he was told to figure it out or he would be removed from the AGR program. The applicant then requested to begin the paperwork to remove him from the active duty to relieve the stress and anxiety his children were enduring, to which his battalion commander replied that the applicant needed to choose between his children or his job and told him that if he left, he would be AWOL. The applicant then went on leave to move his children back to Pennsylvania. Before his leave ended he called his unit and was informed that he should return and the unit would begin the proper paperwork to release the applicant from the unit. After his return to his unit, he was subjected to belittlement and demeaning details for being AWOL. His unit did not begin any paperwork as he was told and he could no longer could afford to commute over two hours three days a week. He believes he would never have had any issues if his unit would have been willing to work with his children's schedule or released him under a chapter 5 discharge. The events that led to his discharge have caused him major issues mentally and have affected his civilian life and caused a downward spiral, which resulted in him making poor decisions and ultimately being apprehended. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 August 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: 22 April 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 26 March 2015, the applicant was charged with violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL between 28 May 2014 and 20 March 2015. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 2 April 2015 (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: 17 April 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: OAD, 31 May 2013 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 36 / Some College / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 4 years, 3 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 20 January 2011 - 16 May 2011 / NA IADT, 17 May 2011 - 29 September 2011 / HD USAR, 30 September 2011 - 30 May 2013 / NIF e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Personnel Action form, reflects the applicant's duty status changed from "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," to "Present for Duty (PDY)," effective 20 March 2015. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 294 days (AWOL, 28 May j2014 - 19 March 2015) / Apprehended by Civilian Authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, with all allied documents listed in block 9 of the application. 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 general (under honorable conditions); a restoration of his rank; and, be allowed to finish his initial TPU contract. 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 requests a restoration of his rank and that he be allowed to finish his initial TPU contract. However, the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. 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. The applicant contends he informed his chain of command of his situation with his family, but he never received any help and he was belittled and harassed by them. 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. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 August 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 Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change f. 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 AR20170010471 1