1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 March 2017 b. Date Received: 13 March 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, he served honorably for ten years. He acknowledges and owns up to his mistakes. He has been an outstanding member of the society for the last ten years. He owns a business that employs five. He and his family of five would like to build a home. He has been a middle school football coach for five years. He is also a counselor to young men, teaching them some of the good trades he learned from being a Soldier. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 June 2018, 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: 3 May 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 5 April 2006, the following charges were preferred, with recommendations to refer to trial by a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge or a general court-martial (referral NIF): Charge I: 51 specifications of violating Article 92, UCMJ, for violating lawful general regulations on divers occasions between 16 April 2005 and 4 December 2005, by wrongfully using the Government Travel Purchase Card to purchase items unrelated to official travel from various and multiple merchants. Charge II: violation of Article 107, UCMJ, for making a false official statement on 11 December 2005. Charge III: 21 specifications of violating Article 123a, UCMJ, for wrongfully uttering worthless checks on divers occasions between 23 March 2005 and 20 December 2005. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 25 April 2006 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 April 2006 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 December 1999 / 5 years, 3 months (the applicant extended his enlistment by 15 months on 19 September 2002) (Further, the applicant's enlistment appears to have been involuntarily extended with views toward trial by court-martial and subsequently charges being preferred.) (DD Form 214 also shows the date entered Active Duty as 9 December 1994; however his enlistment contract shows he enlisted into the Regular Army on 29 March 1995. There is no record of an enlistment date of 9 December 1994.) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / 13 years / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 15Q4P, Air Traffic Control Operator / 11 years, 1 month, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR (6 February 1992 to 9 June 1993) / NA IADT (10 June 1993 to 30 July 1993) / UNC USAR (31 July 1993 to 28 March 1995) / NA RA (29 March 1995 to 9 December 1999) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AAM; AGCM-2; NDSM; GWOTSM; KDSM; NCOPDR; ASR; OSR g. Performance Ratings: Nine NCOERs rendered during period under current review (Note "Among the Best" is abbreviated as "AB" and "Fully Capable" as "FC"): April 1999 thru September 2000, AB April 2000 thru November 2000, FC December 2000 thru April 2001, AB May 2001 thru March 2002, AB May 2002 thru January 2003, AB February 2003 thru November 2003, AB December 2003 thru August 2004, AB September 2004 thru January 2005, AB February 2005 thru January 2006, AB h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge Sheet described at the preceding paragraph 3c(1) and its associated documents. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 10 March 2017. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, that he has been an outstanding member of the society for the last ten years; he owns a business that employs five; he has been a middle school football coach for five years; and he is also a counselor to young men, teaching them some of the good trades he learned as a Soldier. 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, 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. 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. AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial." The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant's available record of service and the issues 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. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a 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, and he 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 veterans' benefits. 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 no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would provide his family a home, perhaps through veterans' benefits. However, eligibility for veterans' 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. 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 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. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 June 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer 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 NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20170004176 1