IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 November 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140012929 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony, and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s testimony and seriousness of the crime, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The Board determined the reason for discharge, and reentry code, was 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 under other than honorable conditions to general, under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she contributed to the Montgomery GI Bill when she joined the military. She wants to be able to continue to serve as a civilian DOD employee with a general, under honorable conditions discharge to show that she honored this country, but made mistakes. She states she is older, wiser and has served as a civilian during Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. She currently serves as a Provost Clerk in the Directorate of Emergency Services. She is humbly asking for forgiveness. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 21 July 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 8 February 2002 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: HHC, 2-3rd Aviation Regiment, Hunter Army Airfield, GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 8 July 1999/3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 7 months, 1 day h. Total Service: 2 years, 7 months, 1 day i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92G10, Food Service Specialist m. GT Score: 94 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 July 1999, for a period of 3 years. She was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. Her record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement. She completed 2 years, 7 months, 1 day of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet, which indicates that on 14 January 2002, the applicant was charged with the following offenses: a. intent to defraud, falsely making the signature of PFC V, to a credit card receipt x 2 (011004), and b. wrongfully and unlawfully making under oath the false statement in substance “I found the credit cards in the parking lot of Wal-Mart.” 2. On 16 January 2002, 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 she understood she 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 her own behalf. The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended a special court-martial empowered to impose a bad conduct discharge. 3. On 24 January 2002, 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 8 February 2002, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 5. The applicant’s record of service does not show any record of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. DA Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 14 January 2002, reflects the applicant was charged with two specifications of intent to defraud by falsely making the signature of PFC V, to a certain credit card receipt and wrongfully and lawfully making a false official statement. 2. Court-Martial Convening Order Number 23, dated 15 July 2001. 3. CID Report of Investigation, dated 13 December 2001, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for false swearing, forgery, housebreaking (unfounded), larceny of private funds, larceny of private funds (unfounded), and larceny of private property. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided A DD Form 293, dated 15 July 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states she is currently employed as a Provost Clerk at the Directorate of Emergency Services. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. 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 to be both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. 2. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant’s discharge, the Board found that the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 27 contains the erroneous reentry code of 3. In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read RE-4, as required by Army Regulations. 3. The record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a general or a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by charges that with intent to defraud when she forged the name of another Soldier on two credit card receipts and made a false official statement. Further, the applicant voluntarily requested discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Chapter 10 on her own free will based on the charges preferred against her. 4. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. 5. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow her to continue to serve as a DOD civilian employee and use her education benefits. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, 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. 6. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 7. In view of the error, recommend the Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read RE-4, as required by Army Regulations. BOARD DETERMINATION AND DIRECTED ACTION After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony, and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s testimony and seriousness of the crime, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The Board determined the reason for discharge, and reentry code, was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Personal Appearance Date: 17 November 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: None Board Vote: Character Change: 5 No Change: 0 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: Yes Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change 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) AR20140012929 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1