AR20140002545

IN THE CASE OF: Ms.

BOARD DATE: 7 January 2015

CASE NUMBER: AR20140002545
___________________________________________________________________________

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 a change to the narrative reason for discharge. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.

2. The applicant states, in effect, she suffered from financial hardships during the time of her discharge and had to change residences several times. She states she was evicted for non-payment. In September 2005, she was displaced due to a fire in her apartment building and her vehicle was not safe to drive the 45 minutes to her duty station in Scranton, PA. She states she is now grounded and has grown as a person. She contends an upgrade would allow her to have upper management responsibilities with the company she works for. She apologizes for not being able to fulfill her duties in the Army Reserve (USAR) but is still proud of herself for trying.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date: 5 February 2014
b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 7 December 2005
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: A Company, 1079th MRB, Fort Dix, NJ
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 16 December 2004/NIF
g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 month, 7 days
h. Total Service: 3 years, 17 days
i. Time Lost: 316 days
j. Previous Discharges: USAR, 031204-041215, NA (Concurrent
Service)
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 21R10, Interior Electrician
m. GT Score: NIF
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: None
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: NA
s. Performance Ratings: NA
t. Counseling Statements: NIF
u. Prior Board Review: No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve on 4 December 2003, for a period of 8 years. She was 25 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She was ordered to active duty on 16 December 2004, for an unspecified period of time. Her record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement. She completed a total of 3 years and 17 days of military service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Fort Dix, NJ.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. The applicants disciplinary history includes accrual of 316 days of time lost for being AWOL from 16 December 2004 until her apprehension by civilian authorities on 31 October 2005.

2. The applicants record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicants signature.

3. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 7 December 2005, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS, with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4.

4. On 22 November 2005, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that she be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.

5. On 7 December 2005, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 she was issued shows she completed 1 month and 7 days of creditable active military service and accrued 316 days of time lost due to being AWOL. The record also shows 27 days of excess leave from 11 November 2005 to 7 December 2005.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:

1. IWS reflects on 16 December 2004, the applicant was partially mobilized.

2. Discharge Orders Number 339-0157, dated 5 December 2005, HQs, US Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, Fort Knox, KY, discharged the applicant from the Army effecting 7 December 2005.

3. Orders Number 318-2, dated 14 November 2005, HQs, US Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort Knox, KY, assigned the applicant to the USA Personnel Control Facility after being apprehended by civilian authorities effective 1 November 2005.

4. Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 22 October 2004 and 16 December 2004, changing the applicants duty status.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 3 February 2014, a DD Form 214, a report from the Stroudsburg Fire Department, dated 30 September 2005, a certificate of title for a vehicle from the State of Pennsylvania, and a excerpt of a news article

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY:

The applicant did not provide any in support of her application.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1. 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 individuals admission of guilt.

2. 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.

3. 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.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1. The applicants request for a change to the narrative reason was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicants military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit a change to the narrative reason for discharge.

2. 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.

3. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge.

4. After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, the Board determined the applicants length and quality of his service were not significantly meritorious to overcome the seriousness of the misconduct that caused her discharge from the Army; as a result the discharge being both proper and equitable an upgrade of the characterization of service is not warranted.

5. The applicants record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army. However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

6. The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant’s quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. This presumption is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicants statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity in this case and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge.

7. If the applicant desires a personal appearance, it is her responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record. The applicant will need to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence (i.e., discharge packet) sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration.

8. Therefore, based on the available evidence and the presumption of government regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief.

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 7 January 2015 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) AR20140002545

Page 6 of 6 pages

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

1