IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 June 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140007112 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge characterization of service to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he suffers from PTSD and TBI. The applicant contends, prior to his deployment, he was an impeccable Soldier who had received numerous awards and commendations. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 11 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 9 February 2011 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: B Company, 1st Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Carson, CO f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 29 July 2008/3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 5 months, 9 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 5 months, 9 days i. Time Lost: 20 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10, Infantryman m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: GED o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (090521-100526) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MEDAL, CIB 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 29 July 2008, for a period of 3 years. He was 24 years old at the time of entry and had a general education development (GED) Certificate. He served in Afghanistan and earned an ARCOM and a CIB and completed 2 years, 5 months, and 9 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Carson, Colorado. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 10 November 2010, the applicant was charged with the following offenses: a. AWOL x3; (100903-100910), (101012-101019), (101104-101110), and, b. wrongfully used methamphetamines between on or about (100903-100910). 2. On 22 November 2010, a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for violating Article 86 and 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) based on the offenses outlined in the preceding paragraph. On 22 November 2010, 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 on his own behalf. However, the applicant’s counsel submitted a statement on his behalf. 4. On 3 December 2010, 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. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 9 February 2011, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 6. The applicant’s record of service indicates 20 days of time lost for being AWOL x3, (100903-100910), (101012-101019), (101104-101110). The applicant returned to his unit after each period of AWOL. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), reflect duty status changes as follows: a. Present for Duty (PDY) to AWOL, effective 5 November 2010, and b. AWOL to PDY effective 11 November 2010 EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 7 April 2014, a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review; and a copy of his discharge packet. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None was provided 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, 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 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 suffers from PTSD and TBI. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 5. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour and numerous awards and commendations. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge. 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: 24 June 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 2 No Change: 3 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 gend: 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) AR20140007112 Page 2 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1