IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 November 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140015327 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 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 her under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she was young and made a bad decision while she was on active duty. The applicant contends she has since taken steps to improve herself by going to school and working. The applicant states she would like an upgrade in order to use her GI Bill benefits for school and have access to the healthcare benefits. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 25 August 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 11 December 2001 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: Headquarters and Headquarters Company 10th Signal Battalion, Fort Drum, New York f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 25 March 1999/4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 10 months, 2 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 10 months, 2 days i. Time Lost: 314 days j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 990210-990324, N/A k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 74C10, Record Telecommunications Operator-Maintainer m. GT Score: 103 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: ASR 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 25 March 1999, for a period of 4 years. She was 19 years old at the time of enlistment and a high school graduate. She completed 1 year, 10 months, 2 days of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Fort Drum, New York. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet, which indicates that on 5 October 2000, the applicant was charged with being absent from her organization, without authority, from on or about 23 November 1999 to on or about 2 October 2000. 2. On 5 October 2000, 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 did not submit a statement on her own behalf. The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 29 November 2001, 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 11 December 2001, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 5. The applicant’s record of service indicates 314 days of time lost for being AWOL (991123-001002). The applicant surrendered to military authorities at 1055 hrs, 2 October 2000, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The record also shows 432 days of excess leave (001006 – 011211). EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Memorandum, dated 5 October 2000, admission of AWOL for administrative purposes, signed by the applicant and a JAGC officer. 2. Orders 344-0202, dated 10 December 2001, Headquarters, US Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, Kentucky, discharged applicant from the United States Army effective, 11 December 2001. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 1. The applicant provided a DD form 293, dated 20 August 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. 2. The applicant provided three letters of support, with the common theme that the applicant is trustworthy, responsible, and motivated. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states she has been taking steps to improve herself through schooling and working. The record is void of transcripts from educational institutions. 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 her characterization 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. Her 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 she was young and immature at the time of the discharge. 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. 5. The applicant contends that since leaving the Army she has taken steps to improve herself by going to school and working. The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 6. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. 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. 7. The applicant contends her discharge should be upgraded because she would like to have access to the healthcare benefits. However, the issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. 8. 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: Personnel Appearance Date: 3 November 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: Yes 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: 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) AR20140015327 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1