BOARD DATE: 12 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150008579 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __x______ __x______ __x___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 12 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150008579 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20140004171 on 14 October 2014. ___________x______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. Enclosure 1 BOARD DATE: 12 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150008579 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to fully honorable. 2. The applicant states: * the information the Board received was wrong; his request for separation went to Forces Command (FORSCOM) and was approved * he had requested discharge and showed proof that he could support himself outside the Army and that his father was dying at the time * he and a sergeant went to battalion to pick up his packet but were told someone already picked it up; when they returned to the company no one knew where his separation packet was * his separation packet was approved (to separate with honor) but his packet was held hostage because of jealousy * if he knew he could get out of the Army with an honorable discharge he would not have gone absent without leave (AWOL) * his father, who served in the Army and is a Purple Heart recipient, did not respect that he (the applicant) was AWOL * the Board should investigate the fact that his packet was approved and then went missing; it is about legacy and honor; he played by the rules but the system failed him * he was mistreated based on his tax bracket/class; he was above average, never showed up late, passed his physical tests and was never in trouble * he paid for a private investigator to investigate and track down the person/people who held up his paperwork and he will press charges when he gets the proof * after his father's death, he returned to military control on his own but his command made things very grey because of his status, class, and wealth * he was wronged by the Nation and robbed of an honorable discharge because someone was jealous of his accomplishments outside the military 3. The applicant provides a copy of a previously-available DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement). CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20140004171 on 14 October 2014. 2. The applicant did not provide any new documentary evidence. However, he provides a new argument, which warrants consideration by the Board. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 13 August 2009. He was trained in and held military occupational specialty 12W (Carpentry and Masonry Specialist). He was assigned to the 93rd Engineer Company, 46th Engineer Battalion, Fort Polk, LA. 4. On 23 February 2011, he requested voluntary separation and his separation packet was approved, at the installation level (Fort Polk) on 2 May 2011. It was forwarded to the Office of the Secretary of the Army through FORSCOM but the legal office at FORSCOM returned the packet until the applicant attended the Congressionally-mandated Army Career and Alumni Program (ACAP). 5. The chain of command received the returned packet and informed the applicant of the mandated requirement. As the chain of command was working on his packet, on 27 June 2011, he departed his unit in an AWOL status and on 28 July 2011, he was dropped from the rolls (DFR) as a deserter. Processing of his separation ceased. He ultimately surrendered to military authorities at Fort Polk on 3 February 2012. 6. On 1 May 2012, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him from the Army in accordance with paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) for misconduct – commission of a serious offense. The basis for the recommendation was the applicant's AWOL. The immediate commander recommended a general discharge. 7. On 1 May 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate him, and on 2 May, he consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action for misconduct, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and the procedures and rights available to him. He elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf. 8. The applicant acknowledged he understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued to him. He also acknowledged he understood that as a result of the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. 9. Subsequent to this acknowledgement, on 2 May 2012, the applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct-commission of a serious offense. The immediate commander recommended he receive an under honorable conditions (general) character of service. 10. On 9 May 2012, the intermediate commander recommended approval of the separation action with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 11. On 15 May 2012, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct and directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge under honorable conditions. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 18 May 2012. 12. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct with an under honorable conditions (general) character of service. This form also confirms he completed a total of 2 years, 1 month, and 29 days of creditable military service and he had 222 days of lost time and did not complete his full term of service. Additionally, this form shows he was awarded or authorized: * National Defense Service Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Army Service Ribbon 13. On 5 April 2013, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed his discharge and found it proper and equitable. As such the ADRB denied the applicant's petition to upgrade the character of his discharge. 14. On 14 October 2014, the ABCMR also considered his petition for an upgrade of his discharge but found no error or injustice. The Board denied his request. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14, in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority might direct a general discharge if such was merited by the Soldier's overall record. a. 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. b. Paragraph 14-12(c) provides for separation for commission of a serious military or civil offense if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely-related offense under the Manual of Courts-Martial. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant committed a serious offense in that he was AWOL/DFR. Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation action against him for misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200. He was advised of and exercised his rights. 2. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. He was accordingly discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 due to this misconduct. 3. Contrary to his contention, the separation packet (for other reasons) was not approved by FORSCOM. It was approved at the installation level and was forwarded to the Office of the Secretary of the Army through FORSCOM, but the legal office at FORSCOM returned it until the applicant attended the Congressionally-mandated ACAP. He was informed, but chose to go AWOL. 4. Contrary to his contention that he was separated for jealousy and/or because of his class/wealth, the evidence of record clearly shows the reason for the discharge action was his AWOL. There would have been many other legitimate avenues to address any issues encountered at the time. Instead, he went AWOL and failed to complete his full term of service. 5. The evidence of record further shows the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with Army standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. His service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and did not rise to the level required for an honorable discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150008579 Enclosure 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150008579 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1