IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 July 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140010315 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the analyst’s Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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 her discharge characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general, under honorable conditions or honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, her discharge is incorrect due to emotional stress at the time and that is why she attempted suicide and then went AWOL. She should have been medically discharged and her rank should be annotated as PV2/E-2 on her DD Form 214. She has been denied several jobs because of her discharge. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 10 June 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 17 July 2009 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 Co, 703rd MSB, Fort Stewart, GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 7 February 2001, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 9 months, 3 days h. Total Service: 9 months, 3 days i. Time Lost: 2,808 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 88M10, Motor Transport Operator m. GT Score: 97 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: No t. Counseling Statements: No u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 February 2001, for a period of 4 years. She was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M10, Motor Transport Operator. Her record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements; she achieved the rank of PV2/E-2 and was serving at Fort Stewart, GA when she went AWOL and was returned to duty there, where her discharge was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army. However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature. 2. The DD Form 214 indicates on 17 July 2009, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the Service 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 4. 3. The applicant’s available record does not contain any evidence of actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 4. The applicant’s record of service indicates 2,802 days of time lost for being AWOL from 28 August 2001 until 29 April 2009; she was apprehended by civil authorities. She was in confinement for 6 days from 29 April 2009 until 5 May 2009. Total time lost was 2,808 days. 5. On 13 July 2009, DA, Headquarters, 3rd Infantry Division and Fort Stewart, Fort Stewart, GA, Orders Number 194-0002, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 17 July 2009. On 22 July 2009, amended Orders Number 203-0004, changed the applicant’s reporting date to 17 July 2009. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. DD Form 214, dated 17 July 2009. 2. Discharge Orders Number 194-0002, dated 13 July 2009. 3. Amended Orders Number 203-0004, dated 22 July 2009. 4. Five DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated between 29 August 2001 and 6 May 2006, showing the applicant present for duty, AWOL dropped from rolls, confinement and present for duty dates. 5. DD Form 553 (Deserter/Absentee Wanted by the Armed Forces), dated 1 October 2001, indicating the applicant was wanted as a deserter. 6. DD Form 616 (Report of Return of Absentee) dated 29 April 2009, indicating the applicant was apprehended by civilian authorities. 7. Enlistment/Reenlistment document dated 7 February 2001. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, self-authored statement, support statement, medical documents (five pages), sworn statement (three pages), Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), and a DD Form 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any information with her 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 her characterization of service was carefully considered. 2. After examining the applicant’s record of service, her available military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's discharge to general, under honorable conditions for the following reasons: a. Service of sufficient length: The applicant served 6 months and 22 days prior to her mental health issues; thus the preponderance of her service was honorable. b. Medical circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e., diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, borderline personality traits, antisocial personality traits, family problems and the applicant was also diagnosed with a major depressive disorder). 3. This recommendation was made after full consideration of all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh and as a result, it is inequitable. 4. In view of the foregoing, relief is warranted based on equity in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. This action entails a restoration of grade to PV2/E-2. 5. The applicant contends she should have been medically discharged. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. 6. The applicant further contends she was denied several jobs because of her discharge. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 7. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record. 8. However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. (See paragraph 4 above). BOARD DETERMINATION AND DIRECTED ACTION: After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the analyst’s Discussion and Recommendation, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 15 July 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 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) AR20140010315 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1