IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 10 December 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140000709 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 of his discharge from under other than honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge based on clemency. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 6 January 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 15 January 2002 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, AR 635-200, Chapter 10, KFS, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: 401st MP Co, Fort Hood, TX f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 1 June 2000, 5 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 4 months, 15 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 4 months, 15 days i. Time Lost: 89 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10, Infantryman m. GT Score: 102 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: None u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 June 2000, for a period of 5 years. He was 18 years old at the time and a high school graduate. The record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates that on 22 February 2001, the applicant was charged with going AWOL (001114-010212). 2. On 22 February 2001, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense. The applicant indicated he understood he could receive an UOTHC discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits. The applicant did submit a statement on his own behalf. The unit commander recommended approval of an UOTHC discharge. 3. On 13 December 2001, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service of UOTHC. The applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 4. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 15 January 2002, with a characterization of service of UOTHC under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of KFS and an RE code of 4. 5. The applicant’s record of service indicates 89 days of time lost for going AWOL from 14 November 2000 until his return on 12 February 2001. The DD Form 214 under review also indicates 326 days of excess leave (010224-020115). EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 15 November 2000 and 14 December 2000, changing the applicant's duty status from present for duty (PDY) to absent without leave (AWOL) and AWOL to dropped from the rolls (DFR). 2. A report of return of absentee (DD Form 616) dated 12 February 2001, indicating the applicant was apprehended 12 February 2001 after going AWOL 14 November 2000. 3. There are no negative counseling or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in the record. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None were provided with the application. 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. 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. 3. 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. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of his characterization based on clemency was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, the issues and document 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. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 10 December 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) AR20140000709 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1