BOARD DATE:	 12 May 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100026461 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to change his separation program designator (SPD) code from JKA to JHD, the reentry code from 3 to 1, and the narrative reason for separation from pattern of misconduct to a more favorable reason.

2.  The applicant states he takes full responsibility for his actions during his military service and the mistakes which caused him to be discharged as a result of an Article 15.  It is his wish to rejoin the Army National Guard (ARNG).  He needs the support of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  He needs the codes changed so he can meet the requirements for reenlistment.   After his release from active duty he vowed to do all he could to better himself.  Since 2006 he has:

* Graduated with a bachelor's degree
* Met with a recruiter and retook the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVB), scoring a 113 in General Technical (GT)
* Maintained a full-time job as Fleet Manager, New York Waterway
* Became an active member of the First African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Zion Church

3.  The applicant provides copies of his ASVAB test scores, bachelor's degree, letter from clergy, a letter from his Congressman, and a letter from the Adjutant, 47th Quartermaster Group, Farrel, PA.


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Following service in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), the applicant entered active duty on 9 May 2004.  He held military occupational specialty 42A (Human Resources Specialist).

2.  On 31 March 2006, the applicant's unit commander notified him that he was initiating separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12b, by reason of misconduct - failing to make full payment on his government credit card, failing to use his government credit card for military purposes only, wrongfully using his government telephone for personal long distance telephone calls, failing to perform his military duties due to conducting personal business during duty hours, wrongfully using his government computer in a manner that interfered with official duties, making false official statements (5 incidents), being absent without leave (AWOL) from 10 to 13 February 2006, and impersonating an agent of superior authority. 

3.  The applicant consulted with counsel concerning his rights.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

4.  The unit commander recommended separation from the service with a general discharge and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander recommended approval of the action with a general discharge. 

5.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 21 June 2006.  The separation authority shows "Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b."  The character of service shows "under honorable conditions (General)."  The reason for separation shows "pattern of misconduct."  The separation code is "JKA" and the reentry code is "3."  He had completed 2 years, 1 month, and 
13 days net active service.  

6.  On 28 November 2007, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to upgrade his general discharge to an honorable and to change the narrative reason for separation to "hardship." 

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

   a.  Chapter 14, in effect at the time, established policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions and convictions by civil authorities.  Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.

	b.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities and reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.

	a.  The SPD code of JKA was the appropriate code for the applicant based upon the guidance provided in Army Regulation 635-5-1 for Soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct.

	b.  The SPD code of JHD, which the applicant referred to is not listed in the regulation as a valid SPD code at the time he was discharged.

9.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) paragraph 2-9 provides that the Board begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

10.  In support of his request, the applicant provides undated letters from his clergy, congressperson, and the Adjutant of the 475th Quartermaster Group.  All three letters reference the applicant's dedication, honesty, reliability, commitment to our country, and professionalism and recommend that he be given an opportunity to become an officer.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged due to a pattern of misconduct, denoted by an SPD code of JKA.  The RE code and the narrative reason for separation annotated on his DD Form 214 are appropriate.  

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The applicant's character of service is commensurate with his overall record.
3.  The applicant has not provided any documentary evidence showing his discharge action was in error or is unjust.  

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x___  ___x_____  ____x____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      _________x_______________
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100021956



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100026461



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1