1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 August 2018 b. Date Received: 27 September 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from bad conduct to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, served the country honorably during peacetime and war. It's been hard to find a good job to provide adequate income to provide housing and medical insurance for the family. The applicant needs an upgrade for vocation rehabilitation to help reintegrate the applicant in the work force. The applicant needs medical coverage through the VA to get the help the applicant needs. The applicant has been a productive citizen since discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 18 March 2020, and by a 4-1 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: Court-Martial Other / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / Bad-Conduct b. Date of Discharge: 10 February 2006 c. Separation Facts: NA (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NA (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was found guilty by a Special Court-Martial of the following offenses: wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $100, the property of Armed Forces Bank (6 May 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $120, the property of Armed Forces Bank (7 May 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $501.50, the property of Armed Forces Bank (15 May 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $161.50, the property of Armed Forces Bank (16 May 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $121.49, the property of Armed Forces Bank (2 June 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $260, the property of Armed Forces Bank (5 June 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $200, the property of Armed Forces Bank (13 June 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $200, the property of Armed Forces Bank (1 July 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $300, the property of Armed Forces Bank (1 July 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $100, the property of Armed Forces Bank (7 July 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $141, the property of Armed Forces Bank (11 July 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $200, the property of Armed Forces Bank (11 July 2003); wrongful appropriation of motorcycle parts, of a value of $164.90, the property of Targa (14 July 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $220, the property of Armed Forces Bank (15 July 2003); wrongful appropriation of merchandise, of a value of $121, the property of Army Air Force Exchange (16 July 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $300, the property of Armed Forces Bank (17 July 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $100, the property of Armed Forces Bank (18 July 2003); wrongful appropriation of currency, of a value of $298.30, the property of Armed Forces Bank (4 August 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $200, the property of Armed Forces Bank (7 August 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $400, the property of Armed Forces Bank (15 August 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $100, the property of Armed Forces Bank (18 August 2003); wrongful appropriation of United States currency, of a value of $400, the property of Armed Forces Bank (29 August 2003). On 16 March 2004, he was sentenced to be to be confined for six months and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge. On 9 July 2004, the sentence was approved. The record of trial was forwarded to The US Army Court of Criminal Appeals for review. On 21 March 2005, The US Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence. On 27 September 2005, the sentence was finally affirmed and Article 71(c) having been complied with, the bad conduct discharge was ordered to be executed. (3) Recommended Characterization: NA (4) Legal Consultation Date: NA (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 September 2005 / Bad-Conduct 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 December 2001 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 years / 1 year college / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 11B10, Infantryman / 6 years, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 23 August 1999 to 10 May 1999 / NA IADT, 11 May 1999 to 15 September 2000 / UNC USAR, 16 September 2000 to 17 December 2001 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: June 2003 to March 2004, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Special Court-Martial, see paragraph 3c(2) above. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Military Confinement for 149 days, 16 March 2004 to 15 August 2004; applicant also had 544 days of excess leave, 16 August 2004 to 10 February 2006 j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages). 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 3, Section IV establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the ADRB to be established facts, issues relating to the applicant's innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the ADRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from bad conduct to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service and the issues submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The applicant seeks relief contending, he served his country honorably during peacetime and war. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of court martial proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant further contends, it has been hard to find a good job to provide adequate income to provide housing and medical insurance for his family. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant also contends, he needs an upgrade for vocation rehabilitation to help reintegrate him in the work force; and he needs medical coverage through the VA to get the help he needs. 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. The applicant additionally contends, he has a productive citizen since his discharge. The applicant is to be commended for his effort. However, this contention 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. 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 judicial due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 18 March 2020, and by a 4-1 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 AR20180012987 1