IN THE CASE OF:	

      BOARD DATE:	27 May 2015

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20140007881
___________________________________________________________________________

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 to upgrade the characterization of his service from under other than honorable conditions to general, under honorable conditions or honorable.  

2.  The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, he would like to receive service-related disabilities which he incurred while on active duty.  He adds in his self-authored statement that he suffers from depression and anxiety which led to severe drinking and derailing his life.  He is receiving treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder at a VA hospital, but certain programs and benefits are not available to him because of his discharge. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	1 May 2014
	b.	Discharge Received:	Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	31 May 2006
	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:	Co I, 262nd QM Bn, Fort Lee, VA
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	23 June 2005, 3 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	0 years, 8 months, 26 days 
	h.	Total Service:	5 years, 4 months, 17 days
	i.	Time Lost:	71 days
	j.	Previous Discharges:	RA (001102-041101) / HD
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	42L10, Administrative Specialist
	m.	GT Score:	94
	n.	Education:	GED
	o.	Overseas Service:	Korea
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	AAM; AGCM; NDSM; GWOTSM; KDSM; ASR;
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	NIF
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The record shows the applicant with previous service, enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 June 2005, for a period of 3 years.  He was 24 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED).  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 42L10, Administrative Specialist.  He served in Korea.  He earned an AAM.  His record documents no other acts of valor or significant achievement.  He completed 5 years, 4 months, and 17 days of active duty and reserve service.



SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes accrual of 71 days of time lost for being AWOL from 2 February 2006 through 14 February 2006, and from 21 February 2006 through 19 April 2006, until he surrendered to military authorities on 20 April 2006.

2.  On 26 April 2006, 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 from 21 February 2006 through 19 April 2006.  On 28 April 2006, 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 (UOTHC) 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 17 May 2006, 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 31 May 2006, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 5 years, 4 months and 17 days of creditable active military service and accrued 71 days of time lost due to being AWOL.  The record also shows 33 days of excess leave, from 29 April 2006 through 31 May 2006.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Charge Sheet described at the preceding paragraph 2.

2.  DD Form 616, Report of Return of Absentee, dated 20 April 2006, indicates the applicant surrendered to military authorities after being AWOL from his unit beginning 21 February 2006.

2.  There are no negative counseling statements or any actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a self-authored statement.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none.  

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.  

4.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It identifies the SPD code of "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

5.  The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" will be assigned an RE Code of 4.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his service was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, the issue 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.  The applicant contends that he was having mental health issues that led to his AWOL.  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.

5.  The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow him to receive veteran’s benefits.  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.  Further, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of obtaining veteran’s benefits.

6.  The applicant contends he is currently being treated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) issues.  However, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  

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:  27 May 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)		AR20140007881

Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1