1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 1 July 2015 b. Date Received: 15 July 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his punishment for his offense was too excessive and it had a major impact to his military career. He has never been in trouble or had any disciplinary action taken against him. He made one mistake and it was taken out of context; it was never his attention to break the law. He served eight years and respectfully request the board to not overlook his honorable service. A prior record review was conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 May 2009. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 July 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 21 July 2000 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date Charges Were Preferred: 30 May 2000 (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), which indicates on 30 May 2000, the applicant was charged with stealing currency, of a value of more than $100, the property of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service on divers occasions between (21 March 1999 and 21 January 2000); and stealing currency, by placing a 50 percent off sticker on a Pioneer Multi-CD Player, which changed the price from $399 to $199.50, of a value of more than $100, the property of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge (4) Legal Consultation Date: 28 June 2000 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 10 July 2000 / the applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 2 June 1998 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 23 years / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: SPC / E-4 / 76J10, Medical Supply Specialist / 7 years, 3 months and 3 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: RA (19 April 1993-13 February 1997) / HD RA (14 February 1997-1 June 1998) / HD e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Germany / Kosovo (27 November 1999-31 December 1999) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM-2, NDSM, KCM-W/BSS, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: US Air Force Security Police, Report of Investigation, dated 17 April 2000, indicates the applicant was under investigation for fraud, larceny of AAFES property and failing to obey a lawful order. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); and a DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided by the applicant. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, 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. Army policy states although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and document submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents several acts of significant achievement and valor; however, it did not support the issuance of a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge by the separation authority at the time of his discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, his punishment for his offense was too excessive and it had a major impact to his military career. The evidence of records shows the applicant had returned over $9,000 worth of AAFES merchandise without a receipt between (21 March 1999 and 22 January 2000). 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 applicant further contends, he was never been in trouble or had any disciplinary action taken against him; he made one mistake and it was taken out of context; it was never his attention to break the law. The service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant also contends, he served eight years and respectfully request the board to not overlook his honorable service. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. Documents/Testimony Presented During Personal Appearance: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional documents and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): 1. College of the Canyons Academic Record, dated 28 June 2016 – 3 pages 2. J.R.M. witness letter, dated 18 July 2016 – 1 page 3. M.L.H. witness letter, dated 22 July 2016 – 1 page 4. J-M.O. witness letter, 19 July 2016 – 1 page b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Request change to RE-Entry Code and Separation Code c. Witnesses: Yes 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 July 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: NA AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: 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 BH – Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police – PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150012065 4