AR20140001352

IN THE CASE OF: Ms.

BOARD DATE: 17 December 2014

CASE NUMBER: AR20140001352
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.

Presiding Officer

I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case.

THE APPLICANTS REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

1. The applicant requests to upgrade the characterization of her service from under other than honorable to general, under honorable conditions.

2. The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, she is a single parent with two children, and in dire need of her GI Bill to continue her education.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date: 17 January 2014
b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 28 June 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, AR 635-200
Chapter 10, KFS, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 46th Engr Bn, 1st Maneuver Enhancement
Bde, Fort Polk, LA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 21 September 2007, 4 years, 22 weeks (and 30-day extension)
g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years, 9 months, 8 days
h. Total Service: 4 years, 9 months, 8 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 42A10, Human Resources Specialist
m. GT Score: 94
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: Germany, SWA
p. Combat Service: Kuwait (090702-100105)
q. Decorations/Awards: AGCM; NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR-2
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: None
t. Counseling Statements: NIF
u. Prior Board Review: No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 September 2007, for a period of 4 years and 22 weeks. On 18 May and 18 June 2012, her enlistment was extended through 17 July 2012, due to preferred of charges under the UCMJ. She was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 42A10, Human Resources Specialist. She served in Kuwait and Germany. Her record documents no other acts of valor or significant achievement. She completed 4 years, 9 months, and 8 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458 Charge Sheet, which indicates that on 18May 2012, the applicant was charged with the following offenses:

a. Charge I, violation of Article 81, UCMJ, for conspiring to commit larceny (110401-110421), and
b. Charge II, violation of Article 121, UCMJ, for stealing money, property of the US Army (110421-110513).

2. On 31 May 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, 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. The applicant indicated she understood she could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans benefits. The applicant submitted a statement on her own behalf. The unit commander and intermediate commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

3. On 8 June 2012, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request, and directed the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.

4. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 28 June 2012, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

5. The applicants record of service does not show any record of unauthorized absences or time lost.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:

1. Charge sheet described at the preceding paragraph 1 was referred for trial by a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge on 31 May 2012.

2. CID Investigative Report, dated 1 December 2011, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for larceny, fraud, forgery, making and signing false official statements, and conspiracy.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided DD Form 214 for service under current review.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY:

The applicant provided none.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

2. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

3. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

4. 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.

5. 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.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicants record of service, the issue and document submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.

2. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. It also shows that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. Her 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 and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general discharge at this late date.

4. The applicant contends she is in dire need of her educational benefits. However, 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. Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of obtaining educational benefits.

5. Therefore, the reason and characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief.

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 17 December 2014 Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify, NA

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA

Board Vote:
Character Change: 0 No Change: 5
Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214: No
Change Characterization to: No Change
Change Reason to: No Change
Change Authority for Separation: NA
Change RE Code to: NA
Grade Restoration to: NA
Other: NA

Legend:
AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record FG – Field Grade IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE – Reentry
AWOL – Absent Without Leave GD – General Discharge NA – Not applicable SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge HS – High School NIF – Not in File SPCM – Special Court Martial
CG – Company Grade Article 15 HD – Honorable Discharge OAD – Ordered to Active Duty UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge
CID – Criminal investigation Department MP Military Police OMPF – Official Military Personnel File UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140001352

Page 5 of 5 pages

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

1