1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 December 2018 b. Date Received: 15 January 2019 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the characterization of discharge does not fit the overall military career. The applicant was an outstanding Soldier, who gave everything to the US Army. The applicant went above and beyond to accomplish everything and still does. The applicant did not let the situation deceive the applicant, because the applicant is still a Soldier. The applicant will always carry oneself, accordingly. The applicant made the best of the situation and decided to enroll at a technical university to obtain a bachelor's degree in business management. The applicant has 34 more credit hours left to complete. In pursuance of an education, Marathon Petroleum Corporation saw something in the applicant and gave the applicant an opportunity to work as an operation technician. The military training has helped the applicant exceed in every assigned task. The applicant also volunteers with helping a Junior Mason Program to help keep children on the right path in life, and to teach them to never take shortcuts in life. On Sundays, the applicant volunteers at a Baptist Church with teaching Sunday school classes. The applicant volunteers to help and serve the community, just as the applicant served the country for four years. The period of Honorable service should be considered; wherein, the one mistake should not be a cause for the UOTH discharge. The past chain of command supported the applicant with the quest for an upgrade to reflect honorable service. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 May 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: 25 August 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 20 June 2017, the applicant was charged with the following: Charge I: Violation of Article 92, UCMJ, for disobeying a superior commissioned officer on 7 June 2017. Charge II: Four Specifications of Violating Article 128, UCMJ, for assaulting PV2 B.B. on four separate occasions on 6 April 2017 x 2, and 7 June 2017 x 2. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 11 July 2017 (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: 27 July 2017 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 February 2016 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 4 years, 1 month, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (15 July 2013to 9 February 2016) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2; AGCM; NDSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge Sheet described at the preceding paragraph 3c(1). 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 26 December 2018, and two supporting statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, he is enrolled with a university and employed with a Petroleum Corporation as an operation technician. He also volunteers at a Junior Mason Program and helps with teaching children to stay on the right path in life, and volunteers at a Baptist Church with teaching Sunday school classes. 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. Further, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record during the current enlistment. (See chap 3, section II.) However, 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 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 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 other acts of significant achievement or valor, and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general (under honorable conditions) discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. 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 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 accomplishments and complete period of service were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance and character. While recognizing his continued good conduct and performance after leaving the Army; 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 at the time of his separation. 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 8 May 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 AR20190002244 1