IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 November 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220005108 APPLICANT REQUESTS: . correction of his two DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 21 May 1991, and 18 December 2000 to show – . his service during Operation Desert Shield/Storm . his authorized decorations/awards earned during Operation Desert Shield/Storm . correction of his DD Form 214, for the period ending 18 December 2000, to – . deleted the remark "Member has not completed first full term of service" . upgrade of his discharge from Under Other Than Honorable Conditions to Under Honorable Conditions APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: . DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) . page 1, DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II . Headquarters, I Corps and Fort Lewis Orders 61-103, 15 May 1991 . United States General Accounting Office, "Operation Desert Storm – Full Army Medical Capability Not Achieved," August 1992 . DD Forms 214, for the periods ending 21 May 1991 and 18 December 2000 . excerpts from his integrated Personnel Electronic Records Management System, Case Files for Approved Separations . Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, 18 January 2011 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states: a. His two periods of service for his DD Forms 214 do not reflect his service during Operation Desert Storm/Shield or the decorations earned to include the Southwest Asia Service Medal, Kuwait Liberation Medal – Saudi Arabia and the Kuwait Liberation Medal – Kuwait. His DA Form 2-1 and VA Rating Decision reflect is service in Saudi Arabia from 11 October 1990 to 23 April 1991. His expiration of term of service orders reflect that he was assigned to the 47th Combat Support Hospital, this unit deployed to Operation Desert Storm/Shield. b. The VA has awarded him 30-percent disability for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which occurred during his service in Saudi-Arabia. c. His DD Form 214, for the period ending 18 December 2000, also indicates he did not complete his first full term of service. This is not correct, as he completed his first full term of service when he completed his first enlistment. d. As it relates to the discharge upgrade, he has previously applied but recently received a letter indicating he could reapply based on a class action lawsuit. He believes his discharge should be upgraded from Under Other Than Honorable Conditions to Under Honorable Conditions. When he went absent without leave (AWOL) in 1999, his wife left him while he was stationed at Fort Hood, TX. She left him without any warning and left him with two young children. She took their youngest daughter with her and moved in with another guy. He did not cope with this situation well. He started drinking a lot and then came down on orders for Korea. He did not know what to do and talked to a chaplain who told him there was "nothing left to do but a 4 letter word." He thought going AWOL was his only option. He now knows that it was a poor decision. He should have tried different options, but at the time, he didn't think he had any other options. e. After being AWOL for a little more than a year, he knew he had to get some closure, and he turned himself in at Fort Sill, OK. He asked for a Chapter 10 instead of a court-martial since that is what he was advised to do. f. He has been employed as a licensed plumber for almost 13 years and has made a decent life for himself. He humbly asks the Board to remove the last remaining burden from his time in the Army. His first enlistment was very good, and he served honorably in Operation Desert Shield/Storm. The Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge is the only remaining negative mark on an otherwise decent service record. Please reconsider the Army Discharge Review Board's (ADRB's) prior decision and upgrade his discharge. 3. His DD Form 4, dated 2 February 1987, shows he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program on 2 February 1987 for a period of 8 years and a commitment to enlist in the Regular Army on 20 February 1987. 4. Headquarters, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment Permanent Orders 136-06, 3 November 1988, awarded him the Army Achievement Medal for meritorious achievement, for the period 7 September 1988 to 23 September 1988. 5. Headquarters, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment Permanent Orders 127-19, 17 November 1989, awarded him the Army Achievement Medal for meritorious achievement, for the period 6 October 1989 to 31 October 1989. 6. A review of the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record does not show his reassignment to the 47th Combat Support Hospital. 7. Headquarters, I Corps and Fort Lewis Orders 61-103, 15 May 1991, reassigned him from the 47th Combat Support Hospital, Fort Lewis, WA to the U.S. Army Transition Point, Fort Lewis, WA for transition processing, with a reporting date of 21 May 1991. 8. He was honorably released from active duty on 21 May 1991 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement). His DD Form 214 shows in: . item 12c (Net Active Service This Period) – 4 year, 3 months and 2 days . item 12f (Foreign Service) – No Entry . item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – . Army Achievement Medal with one Oakleaf Cluster . Army Good Conduct Medal . National Defense Service Medal . Army Service Ribbon . Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) 9. The United States General Accounting Office, "Operation Desert Storm – Full Army Medical Capability Not Achieved," August 1992, is a report of a detailed discussion of the problems that the Army encountered in mobilizing, deploying, and supporting medical units in the theater of operations. 10 Headquarters, Department of the Army, General Orders Number 27, 27 December 1994, awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation to the 47th Combat Support Hospital for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service during the period 12 October 1990 to 10 April 1991. 11. His DD Form 4, dated 20 September 1996, shows he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years. 12. The U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center Form 225 (Telephone or Verbal Conversation Record), 10 May 2000, shows the applicant's status as Return to Military Custody as he surrendered to military custody on 10 May 2000. 13. The DA Form 458 (Charge Sheet), 18 May 2000, shows the applicant's charge of violation of Article 86 (Absence Without Leave), Uniform Code of Military Justice. The specification states: in that (Applicant) did, on or about 11 February 1999, without authority, absent himself from his organization, to wit: 1st Adjutant General Replacement Detachment Regiment, located at Camp Coiner, Korea, and did remain so absent until on or about 10 May 2000. 14. The applicant's memorandum (Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Courts-Martial), 19 May 2000, he states: a. He voluntarily request discharge in lieu of trial by courts-martial under Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service). He understood that he may request discharge in lieu of trial by courts-martial because of the charges of violation of Article 86 (AWOL 11 February 1999 to 10 May 2000, which has been preferred against him under the UCMJ, which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. b. He is making this request of his own free will and has not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person. He hereby state that under no circumstances does he desire further rehabilitation, for he has no desire to perform further military service. c. Prior to completing this form, he has been afforded the opportunity to consult with appointed counsel for consultation. He has been fully advised of the nature of his rights under the UCMJ, and the elements of the offense with which he is charged. d. He understood that, if his request for discharge is accepted, he may be discharged under conditions other than honorable. He has been advised and understands the possible effects of an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge and that, as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, he will be deprived of many of all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administrated by the Veterans Administration (later named the Department of Veterans Affairs), and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. e. He further understood that there is no automatic upgrading nor review by a Government agency of a less than honorable discharge and that he must apply to the ADRB or the ABCMR if he wishes a review of his discharge. f. He has been advised that he may submit any statements he desires in his behalf, which will accompany his request for discharge. Statements in his own behalf are not submitted. 15. The Battery A, Personnel and Support Battalion memorandum (Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial), 4 October 2000, the company commander states: a. The applicant's request is administratively correct and meets the requirements for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He is charged with one specification of AWOL totaling 454 days, surrendered to military authorities. b. The reason for AWOL is show as "Personal reasons." He has become disillusioned with the military. Retention of this individual is not in the best interest of the Army. Recommended approval and issuance of a discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. 16. On 21 November 2000, the battalion commander, Personnel and Support Battalion, approved the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by courts-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He directed the applicant will be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge, processed for immediate separation and will be reduced to the rank/grade of private/E-1. 17. His DA Form 2-1, shows in: . item 5 (Oversea Service) – he received overseas tour credit for service in Saudi Arabia from 11 October 1990 through 23 April 1991, 6 months temporary duty . item 9 (Awards, Decorations & Campaigns) – . Army Achievement Medal with four oakleaf clusters . National Defense Service Medal . Army Service Ribbon . Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) (Note: it doesn't specify Expert) 18. He was discharged from active duty on 18 December 2000. His DD Form 214 shows in: . item 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank) – Private . item 4b (Pay Grade) – E-1 . item 12c (Net Active Service This Period) – 2 years, 11 months, and 25 days (Note: this is less that his term of enlistment of 4 years as shown on his DD Form 4, 20 September 1996) . item 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) – 21 November 2000 . item 18 (Remarks) in part – . Excess Leave (Creditable for all Purposes Except Pay and Allowance) – 214 Days – 19 May 2000 through 18 December 2000 . Member Has Not Completed First Full Term of Service . item 24 (Character of Service) – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions . item 25 (Separation Authority) – Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 . item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial 19. His VA Rating Decision, 18 January 2011, states the VA records reflect that the applicant is a veteran who served in the Army from 20 February 1987 to 21 May 1991 and from 20 September 1996 to 18 December 2000. Based on a review of the evidence, the VA made decisions on the applicant's claim, to include service connection for post traumatic stress disorder and granted an evaluation of 10-percent. 20. His DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), 3 January 2013, he requested an upgrade of his Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge to a General/Under Honorable Conditions. He states: a. Leaving the military was not totally due to his negligence. He had talked to several of his superiors as to what was going on at the time, his ex-wife leaving him with two out of three children, and nobody was willing to help him with his issues. He had talked to his chaplain and his reaction was the four letter word that he "couldn't" say out loud but that it was probably his best option (AWOL). b. His unit at that time had passed him over for promotions and schools even though he had prior service, combat experience, and more general knowledge then most of his platoon. He is not asking for the highest discharge of "Honorable", just a general under honorable conditions discharge. 21. On 17 April 2013, the ADRB, after carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering their discussion and recommendation, the board determined the discharge to be proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. The board's discussion and recommendations shows: a. The evidence of record shows that after the applicant consulted with defense counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. b. The applicant contends that he was going through a divorce and his chain of command did not do enough to provide him with the help he needed. 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. c. His record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record and the offense of being AWOL for 454 days. 22. The Defense Manpower Data Center Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm data base shows the applicant served in Southwest Asia in support of Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm from 1 October 1990 to 24 April 1991. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, the reason for his separation and whether to apply clemency. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors for the misconduct and the applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of support to weigh a clemency determination. Based upon a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation for the period ending 18 December 2000, was not in error or unjust. 2. The Board further determined the Army has an interest in maintaining the integrity of its records for historical purposes. The information in those records must reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created. The applicant did not complete his first full term of service for that enlistment period and therefore, relief is not warranted. 3. Prior to closing the case, the Board did note the analyst of record administrative notes below, and recommended the correction is completed to more accurately depict the military service of the applicant. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: Except for the correction addressed in Administrative Note(s) below, the Board found the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): The applicant is authorized administrative correction of his two DD Forms 214 for the period ending 21 May 1991 to show the following without Board action: . item 12f – add 6 months and 24 days . item 13 – . Southwest Asia Service with three Bronze Service Stars . Kuwait Liberation Medal – Saudi Arabia . Kuwait Liberation Medal – Government of Kuwait . Meritorious Unit Commendation . item 18 – SERVICE IN SOUTHWEST ASIA 11 OCTOBER 1990 TO 24 APRIL 1991 REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 3. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. The goal of the total Army Awards Program is to foster mission accomplishment by recognizing excellence of both military and civilian members of the force and motivating them to high levels of performance and service. a. The Southwest Asia Service Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States serving in Southwest Asia and contiguous waters or airspace there over on or after 2 August 1990 to 30 November 1995. A bronze service star is authorized for wear with this medal for participation in each credited campaign. Approved designated campaigns are: . Defense of Saudi Arabia (2 August 1990 to 16 January 1991) . Liberation and Defense of Kuwait (17 January to 11 April 1991) . Cease-Fire Campaign (12 April 1991 to 30 November 1995) b. The Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was approved on 3 January 1992 and is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who participated in the Persian Gulf War between 17 January 1991 and 28 February 1991. c. The Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Government of Kuwait was approved on 9 November 1995 and is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who participated in the Persian Gulf War between 2 August 1990 and 31 August 1993. 4. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separation), in effect at the time, set policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. a. Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) stated an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier'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. (1) A Soldier will not necessarily be denied an honorable discharge solely by reason of the number of convictions by court-martial or actions under Article 15, UCMJ. Conviction by a general court-martial or by more than one special court-martial does not automatically rule out the possibility of awarding an honorable discharge. (2) An honorable discharge may be furnished when disqualifying entries in the Soldier's military record are outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period of time during the current term of service. It is a pattern of behavior and not the isolated incident that should be considered the governing factor in determination of character of service. b. Paragraph 3-7b (General Discharge) stated 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. c. Paragraph 3-7c (Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge) stated a discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation for the Service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial in the following circumstances – (1) When the reason for separation is based upon a pattern of behavior that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers of the Army. (2) When the reason for separation is based upon one or more acts or omissions that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of Soldiers of the Army. d. Chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) stated a Soldier who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which under the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial, includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 5. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), 15 September 2000, prescribed the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active service, or control of the Active Army. It established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. Detailed instructions and source document for completing each item of the DD Form 214, include, for item (Remarks): a. Mandatory entry – "Solider (has) (has not) Completed First Full Term of Service." This information assists the State in determining eligibility for unemployment compensation entitlement. The follow guidance will help determine which entry to use: (1) Routinely, a Soldier should not be considered to have completed the full first term of active service if separation occurs before the end of the initial contracted period of service. However, if a Soldier reenlists before the completion of that period of service, the first term of service is effectively redefined by virtue of the reenlistment contract. (2) To determine if an enlisted Soldier has completed the first full term of enlistment, refer to the enlistment/reenlistment documents and compare the term(s) of enlistment to the net service in item 12c (Net Active Service This Period) of the DD Form 214. If Soldier has completed or exceeded the initial enlistment, enter "has". If item 12c of the DD Form 214 is less than the Soldier's initial enlistment, enter, "has not." b. The specific instructions for an active duty Soldier deployed with his or her unit during their continuous period of active service stated to enter "SERVICE IN (name of country deployed) FROM (inclusive dates for example, YYYYMMDD-YYYYMMDD)" in the remarks block. 6. The Defense Manpower Data Center compiled the Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm data base. The primary Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm file contains one record for each active duty member who participated in theater between August 1990 and December 1997. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//