IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 11 March 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140007099 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 his under other than honorable conditions discharge characterization to honorable. In addition, the applicant requests a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident during his entire time in the service. The applicant contends, he attempted to resolve the issue between himself and another Soldier but was unsuccessful; therefore, he packed his bags and left as requested by many higher ranking individuals. The applicant states, he has worked hard since and has not gotten in any trouble since leaving the military. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 11 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 27 July 2000 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 and Headquarters Battery, 1st Battalion, 377th Field Artillery Regiment, Fort Bragg, NC f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 6 September 1995/4 years, 30 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years, 8 months, 23 days h. Total Service: 4 years, 8 months, 23 days i. Time Lost: 57 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 31U1P, Signal Support Systems Specialist m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: N/A s. Performance Ratings: N/A t. Counseling Statements: No u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 September 1995 for a period of 4 years and 30 weeks. He was 24 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He completed 4 years, 8 months, and 23 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates that on 2 June 1999, the applicant was charged with absenting himself, without authority, from his organization on two occasions (990309-990407 and 990424-990524). 2. On 2 June 1999, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits. The applicant did not submit a statement on his own behalf. The unit commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 3 March 2000, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 4. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 27 July 2000, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 5. The applicant’s record of service indicates 57 days of time lost for being AWOL from 9 March 1999 until 6 April 1999 and 24 April 1999 until 23 May 1999. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: Reduction Order Number 101-19, dated 10 April 2000, Headquarters, US Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Knox, Kentucky, reflects applicant was reduced in rank from specialist to private, effective 3 March 2000, as outlined in AR 600-8-19, Chapter 6-1e. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 8 April 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states, he has worked hard and has not gotten in any trouble since leaving the military. 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 and a change to the narrative reason was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, the issue and documents 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 the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his entire Army career. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 5. The applicant contends that he was having issues with another Soldier that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. 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. 6. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in determining characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 7. Therefore, the reason and 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: 11 March 2015 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) AR20140007099 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1