1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 March 2017 b. Date Received: 12 April 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the applicant was informed one could apply for an upgrade within a ten-year window. The applicant's AWOL was based on suspecting that the unit was not adequately ready for deployment into a combat zone as the unit leadership lacked a sincere focus on mission readiness. The applicant made a choice to not report for deployment because the applicant genuinely feared being a part of a potential disaster. The applicant had an exemplary career as a Michigan National Guardsman. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 August 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: 27 August 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 24 July 2008, the following charge was preferred, with recommendations to refer to trial by a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge or a general court-martial: Charge: Violation of Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL on 25 September 2005, and remained absent until 30 June 2008. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 24 July 2008 (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: 25 August 2008 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 July 2005 / pursuant to Orders 171-649, dated 20 June 2005, MOB in support of OIF for a period of 545 days b. Age at OIF MOB / Education / GT Score: 44 / HS Graduate / 110 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist, 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 12 years, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG (8 January 1981 to 12 May 1981) / NA IADT (13 May 1981 to 6 November 1981) / HD ARNG (7 November 1981 to 7 January 1991) / HD ARNG (18 February 1994 to 17 February 1995) / HD ARNG (30 October 2004 to 17 July 2005) / MOB e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCAM; NDSM-2; ASR; AFRM-M DEV; AFRM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Return of Absentee, dated 17 June 2008, indicates the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities on 17 June 2008. DA Form 4187, dated 23 July 2008, indicates the applicant's status was changed from CCA (Confinement by Civil Authorities) to PDY, effective 17 June 2008; however, he appeared in court for two counts of larceny on 26 June 2008 and 30 June 2008, and sentenced to time served, and returned to military control on 30 June 2008. Charge Sheet described at the preceding paragraph 3c(1) and its associated documents. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 1,009 days (AWOL: 25 September 2005 to 29 June 2008) / The applicant was apprehended by civil authorities. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 28 March 2017, with a self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided with the application. 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. Paragraphs 10-8a-c (types of discharge, characterization of service), provide that a discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial, but that the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment (see chapter 3, section II); for Soldiers who have completed entry-level status, characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would be improper; and when characterization of service under other than honorable conditions is not warranted for a Soldier in entry- level status, service will be uncharacterized. 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 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, while in an entry-level status, 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 the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained in the Army National Guard. The applicant's issue about an upgrade based on the time that has elapsed since the discharge was carefully considered. However, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable. The applicant contends that he elected not to report for deployment because he genuinely feared being a part of a potential disaster as his unit was not adequately ready for deployment into a combat zone, which affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. In consideration of the applicant's asserted exemplary service in the Army National Guard, the Board can find that his complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The available 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 8 August 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 AR20170010579 1