IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 June 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140011007 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 characterization from under other than honorable conditions to a general, under honorable conditions characterization. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he was not returned to the unit he was AWOL from for disciplinary action; had he been returned to his parent unit he would have received an Article 15 and been able to complete his service according to his contract. He was young at the time he went AWOL. He would like to advance in the company he works for and obtain employment with other government agencies. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 19 June 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 13 February 2002 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, Chapter 10, KFS, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: HHB, 1-5th Field Artillery, Fort Riley, KS f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 3 August 1999, 6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 4 months, 13 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 4 months, 13 days i. Time Lost: 58 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 13F10, Fire Support Specialist m. GT Score: 111 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Korea p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: ASR, OSR 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 3 August 1999, for a period of 6 years. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. His record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements; and he achieved the rank of PV2/E-2. He was serving at Fort Riley, KS when he went AWOL; he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Knox, KY where his discharge was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 6 August 2001, the applicant was charged with being AWOL (010602-010801). 2. On 6 August 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits. The applicant submitted a statement on his own behalf. The unit commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 8 February 2002, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions discharge. 4. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 13 February 2002, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions discharge. 5. The applicant's record of service indicates he had 58 days of time lost for being AWOL from 2 June 2001 until 29 July 2001; he surrendered to military authorities. Also, the applicant had 191 days of excess leave from 7 August 2001 until 13 February 2002. 6. The applicant’s service record did not contain any evidence of any actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or negative counseling statements. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. The record contains two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 4 June 2001 and 5 July 2001, showing the applicant’s present for duty, AWOL and dropped from rolls dates. 2. DD Form 553 (Deserter/Absentee Wanted by the Armed Forces), dated 2 July 2001, indicating the applicant was wanted as a deserter. 3. DD Form 616 (Report of Return of Absentee) dated 1 August 2001, indicating the applicant surrendered to military authorities. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provides a DD Form 293 and a DD Form 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states in his application he is working as a civilian contractor in Afghanistan. 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 the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s military records, 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. The applicant contends he was not returned to the unit he was AWOL from for disciplinary action; had he been returned to his parent unit he would have received an Article 15 and been able to complete his service according to his contract. The applicant was AWOL for 58 days; he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Knox where his discharge process was initiated and finalized by the separation authority. 5. Further, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The characterization of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 6. The applicant further contends he was young at the time he went AWOL. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 7. The applicant also contends he would like to advance in the company he works for and obtain employment with other government agencies. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 8. 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: 5 June 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) AR20140011007 Page 2 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1