1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 July 2018 b. Date Received: 16 July 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable, a narrative reason change and a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, decided to enlist into the Army to specifically join the team and support the mission. The applicant did not enlist for bonuses or because the applicant thought it was "cool". The applicant did not enlist for travel, or women, or any sort of glory or notoriety. The applicant enlisted to continue a tradition, and to make oneself, family, and country proud of whatever job the applicant did or sacrifice the applicant would make. The applicant states that from 27 February 2007 at 0700 hours until 28 February 28 at 1900 hours, the applicant was on a period of authorized leave known as "36 hour exodus." During portions of this period, the applicant was seen in local dining areas and at a local hotel with other members of the platoon who were on the same period of authorized leave. The applicant never made any statement nor displayed any intention to not return to the unit. The applicant did not commit any verbal or written act referring to such, and did not take any unauthorized items from the locker. The applicant spent the time in fully authorized areas with other Soldiers as instructed. The applicant had no prior disciplinary infractions, and had been called upon several nights to serve as part of a team, which assisted in the retrieval of returning cadets who had previously been absent without leave. The applicant was often assigned to fireguard, in which the applicant was responsible for mail duty, which allowed the applicant access to outside areas in the dead of night, and made no plans or attempts to leave the unit. The applicant provides the exact same version of events to the Army Discharge Review Board as the applicant had for the past 10 years to a local recruiter, investigation personnel, LT S., JAG personnel and other military personnel as the applicant could. The applicant still holds the belief that the prior knowledge of military practice and desire to counsel members looking to separate drew the ire of a particular member of the command, which held a traditional ''you know nothing" and "us against them" view of cadets, along with racially insensitive views. Though the applicant has not been considered a member of the United States Army in ten years, the respect and passion still burns within the applicant. It is the applicant's hope that upon reviewing the evidence presented, the applicant might agree that the applicant is deserving of the requested change in discharge. The applicant is currently working on the tenth year as an employee of the Arkansas Department of Correction, where the applicant has achieved the rank of Lieutenant and holds the position of Emergency Preparedness Coordinator. The applicant is currently enrolled at Walden University, where the applicant is seeking a Bachelor of Science Degree in Forensic Psychology. The applicant further details contentions in a self-authored statement, wherein the applicant states: The applicant's discharge is improper because the applicant was subject to capricious actions by Fort Benning command. The applicant's discharge is improper because the applicant was provided misleading advice on how to handle the capricious actions of the command at Fort Benning. The applicant's discharge is improper because during the separation process was irregular based on failure to inform the applicant of charges. The applicant's discharge is improper because during the separation process, the applicant was not advised of the right to consult with counsel, was not afforded the means or opportunity to access civilian or military counsel, nor was the minimum of 72-hours to consult with council met during the separation process. The applicant's discharge is improper because the charge of violating UCMJ Article 86 - AWOL is improper. The applicant's discharge is improper because the applicant suffered multiple instances of coercion through misleading information and deliberate improper tactics in submitting the request for discharge. The applicant's discharge is improper because the applicant suffered capricious action by the command at PCF Fort Knox. The applicant's discharge is improper because DD Form 458 (The First Version) is questionable. The applicant's discharge is improper because DD Form 458 (The Second Version) is questionable. The applicant's discharge is improper because the request for discharge is questionable. The applicant's discharge is improper because during the separation process because the applicant's rights were denied. The applicant's discharge is improper because during the separation process, the applicant was not treated in accordance with AR 600-62. The applicant's discharge is improper because the applicant suffered distress and coercion during the separation process. The discharge is inequitable based upon federal oversight. The discharge is inequitable based upon a distorted perception by the command at PCF Fort Knox. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 January 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: 26 March 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 14 February 2008, the applicant was charged with violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL from 28 January 2007 until 12 February 2008. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 14 February 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: 29 February 2008 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 November 2006 / 3 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / GED / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 4 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Three Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 28 January 2007; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 27 February 2007; and, From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 12 February 2008. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 379 days (AWOL, 28 January 2007 - 11 February 2008) / Apprehended by Civil Authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; two self-authored statements; copy of a photograph; copy of identification card; military service records; case separation documents; all listed applicant evidentiary documents. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he is currently working on his tenth year as an employee of the Arkansas Department of Correction, where he has achieved the rank of Lieutenant and holds the position of Emergency Preparedness Coordinator. He is currently enrolled at Walden University, where he is seeking a Bachelor of Science Degree in Forensic Psychology. 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. Army Regulation 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 honorable, a narrative reason change and a reentry eligibility (RE) code change. 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. Further, the applicant by voluntarily requesting a discharge, he was not entitled to an administrative separation board. 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 the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, with a under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial," and the separation code is "KFS." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends his discharge is improper because he was provided misleading advice; his command failed to inform him of the charges; and, his rights were denied. He further contends, he was not advised of his right to consult with counsel, was not afforded the means or opportunity to access civilian or military counsel, nor was the minimum of 72-hours to consult with council met during the separation process. 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. Further, the evidence of the record reflects the applicant met with counsel on 14 February 2008. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The applicant contends his discharge is improper because the applicant suffered multiple instances of coercion through misleading information and deliberate improper tactics in submitting the request for discharge. 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. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends his discharge is improper because he was not given the opportunity for rehabilitation. However, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. The applicant provided other ADRB decision documents wherein other Soldiers with similar offenses were granted relief. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. The applicant requests an RE code change. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant provided several third party statements to support his contentions; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 10 January 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 AR20180013144 1