1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 December 2017 b. Date Received: 12 February 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, an upgrade will allow receipt of service-connected benefits for injuries sustained during first enlistment. The applicant states, was assigned to Fort Hood in 2003, where the unit was allowed to take leave prior to their deployment to Iraq. The applicant went to see children and upon arrival, children's mother was being evicted for smoking marijuana in government housing. The mother was not allowed to return to the apartment, so the applicant told the mother to let the applicant take them back to Fort Hood, until the mother could get things squared away. The applicant called the first sergeant to explain what had occurred, who responded by telling the applicant to leave the kids and that the applicant would be charged with AWOL, if not in formation the following morning. The applicant kept the kids and maintained contact by corresponding with SGT W., SSG C., SSG G., and 1SG H. When the applicant returned to Fort Hood with the children, the first sergeant called the Provost Marshall and told them he wanted the applicant arrested for returning from AWOL. The Provost Marshall informed the first sergeant that the applicant could not be charged if he was present for duty. The applicant went AWOL purposely in 2000 to get out of the military and afterwards received a Field Grade Article 15. The applicant then went from E-1 to E-4 in ten months, then reenlisted to go to Korea. As of 5 January 2004, the applicant did not fail to report. First Sergeant H. stated he was charging the applicant with desertion. The applicant then returned within 30 days to learn that the first sergeant had recommended the applicant to be court-marshalled for desertion. The further details the timeline of events in a self-authored statement provided with the application. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 21 August 2020, 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: 30 March 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 12 February 2004, the applicant was charged with violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 6 January 2004 to 5 February 2004. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 9 March 2004 (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: 18 March 2004 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 September 2001 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / GED / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 5 years, 3 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 12 November 1998 - 23 September 2001 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii, Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: GWOTSM, AGCM, NDSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Two Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 6 January 2004; and, From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 5 February 2004. CG Article 15, dated 2 April 2003, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (7 March 2003). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $408 pay (suspended). Offer to Plead Guilty, dated 27 February 2004, reflects the applicant was pending court-martial charges and offered to plead guilty to the Charge and its Specification, except the words "a time of war" and "and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently." To the excepted words and figures: Not Guilty; conditioned on the convening authorities agreement to refer the applicant's case to a Summary Court-Martial and approve no punishments greater than that authorized therein. The offer was not accepted. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment form, dated 21 November 2003, reflects the applicant was command-referred in the ASAP, after being cited for Driving While Intoxicated. Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 29 days (AWOL, 6 January 2004 - 4 February 2004) / Returned to Military Control j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted 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. 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents 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 at the time of discharge. The applicant contends that he was having family issues that 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. The applicant contends he was in contact with his chain of command and that his first sergeant was pushing for the applicant to be court-martialed. However, 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow veterans benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits do 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 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 21 August 2020, 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 AR20180004790 1