IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 12 November 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140000355 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he was told by the out processing officer that it would change from less than honorable to honorable after 6 months. He has not received any change to his discharge. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 30 December 2013 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 26 July 1999 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, AR 635-200, Chapter 10, KFS, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 8th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 1 April 1998, 3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 27 days h. Total Service: 2 year, 6 months, 2 days i. Time Lost: 89 days j. Previous Discharges: ARNG 970301-970325/NA ADT 970326-979731/UNC ARNG 970801-980331/NA k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92G10, Food Service Specialist m. GT Score: 90 n. Education: HS Grad o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: No t. Counseling Statements: None u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard, reported for active duty training and was transferred back into the Army National Guard. Subsequently, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 April 1998, for a period of 3 years. He was 21 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. The record documents no acts of valor or significant achievements. He completed a total of 2 years, 6 months, and 2 days of active and inactive military service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 23 February 1999, the applicant was charged with the following offense: a. AWOL from 14 November 1998 until 11 February 1999. He was apprehended by the civilian authorities and returned to military control at Fort Sill, OK. 2. On 23 February 1999, 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. 3. On 25 February 1999, 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. 4. 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 on his own behalf. 5. On 29 June 1999, the unit commander recommended approval with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 6. On 12 July 1999, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 7. On 26 July 1999, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS (i.e., in lieu of trial by court-martial) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 3. 8. At the time of discharge he completed 1 year and 27 days of active duty service for the period of service under review and accrued 89 days of time lost due to being AWOL. The applicant was placed on excess leave for 152 days from (990225-990726). EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. DD Form 458, Charge Sheet with the preferred charge and the Request for Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant did not provide any with the application. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any with the application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. 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. 2. 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. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of his characterization of service was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service and the submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 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 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. 4. The applicant contends he was told by the out processing officer that it would change from less than honorable to honorable after 6 months. He has not received any change to his discharge. The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable. 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: Records Review Date: 12 November 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 0 No Change: 5 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: No Change Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: NA Change RE Code to: NA Grade Restoration to: NA Other: NA 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) AR20140000355 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1