IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 3 April 2013 CASE NUMBER: AR20120022094 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade to general, under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he is requesting an upgrade so that he might be eligible for benefits for school. He is trying to earn an associate’s degree in applied sciences for business management. An upgrade will also help him in future employment. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 3 December 2012 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 14 January 2002 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, AR 635-200, Chapter 10, KFS, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: Company A, 442nd Signal Battalion, Fort Gordon, GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 12 November 1999, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 1 month, 4 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 1 month, 4 days i. Time Lost: AWOL 27 days (000706 – 000803); 172 days of lost time not chargeable under 10 USC (000807 – 010130) j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-1 l. Military Occupational Specialty: None m. GT Score: 105 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: None r. Administrative Separation Board: None s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: None u. Prior Board Review: None SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 November 1999 for a period of 4 years. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He completed 2 years, 1 month, and 4 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s disciplinary history includes accrual of 27 days of time lost for being AWOL from 6 July 2000 until his return to military control on 3 August 2000. Additionally, the applicant’s record reflects a second period of lost time from 7 August 2000 until 30 January 2001 that is annotated as not chargeable under title 10 USC on the applicant’s DD Form 214. 2. On 5 February 2001, a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) based on the AWOL offense outlined in the preceding paragraph. On 5 February 2001, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial and of the maximum permissible punishment under the UCMJ, of the possible effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and of the rights and procedures available to him. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 3. In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged that by submitting the request for discharge he was admitting he was guilty of the charge against him or of a lesser-included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge. He also confirmed his understanding that if his request for discharge was approved, he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He further stated he understood that receipt of an under other than honorable conditions discharge could result in his being deprived of many or all Army benefits, his possible ineligibility for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under State and Federal laws. The applicant confirmed he had no desire to perform further military service and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 4. On 31 December 2001, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued a UOTHC Discharge Certificate. 5. On 14 January 2002, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 2 years, 1 month and 4 days of creditable active military service and accrued a total of 199 days of time lost due to being AWOL. The applicant had accrued 342 days of excess leave that was not creditable for pay and allowances, (010207 – 020114). EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: There are no negative counselings or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 214 with his application. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states he is working on an associate’s degree in applied sciences for business management. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of his characterization and a change to his reentry code was carefully considered. 2. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. It also shows that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant 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 the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 3. The UOTHC discharge is normally 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 at the time of discharge and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general discharge at this late date. 4. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, 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. Additionally, the applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 5. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case 6. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Record Review Date: 3 April 2013 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 1 No Change: 4 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: No Change Characterization to: N/A Change Reason to: N/A Change Authority for Separation: N/A Change RE Code to: N/A Grade Restoration to: N/A Other: N/A Legend: AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry 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 CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge CID - Criminal investigation Department MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20120022094 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1