Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/12/07	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that the discharge level is inequitable because it is based solely on one incident in approximately 36 months of active duty with no preceding or following incidents.  For the chain of command to consider the discharge under a pattern of misconduct, one must have multiple non-judicial punishments (i.e., Article-15s) in the Servicemember's file.  In his 36 months of active duty, he only received one Field Grade Article-15 originating from his incident on January 20, 2008 and he proceeded to follow the necessary programs to rehabilitate him back into Army life.  He was administratively separated despite being classified by mental and physical health professionals to be fully capable to be put back into his unit without any hindrance to his comrades in arms.  By order of the chain of command, he underwent an evaluation by a clinical social worker at Fort Riley, KS, where it was declared he was mentally fit to return to active duty without further scrutiny from his leaders.  Furthermore, while on non-judicial punishment, he participated in the Army Substance Abuse Program, where he successfully passed the course and was deemed not to have any problems and could continue his daily routine.  Even though he completed the Army's rehabilitation program, he was separated under AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c.  Additionally, after he was discharged from the Army, he participated in the State of Kansas's mandated Alcohol and Drug Safety Awareness Program which he passed as well.  The mental health professional declared before attending the program that he had no problem with potential alcoholism.  Prior to his discharge and despite the adverse action, he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 080311
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080417   Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: Co C, 2nd Bn, 70th Armor, 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st AD, Fort Riley, KS 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 080218, disobeyed a lawful order by wrongfully driving within eight hours of consuming alcohol (080121), reduced to E-1: forfeiture of $673 x 2 months; 45-day extra duty and restriction; oral reprimand, (FG)

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  24
Current ENL Date: 050421    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  15 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 11 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 11 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19K (M1 Armor Crewman)   GT: 110   EDU: 16 Years   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AGCM; NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR


V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 10 March 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for commission of a serious offense by physically controlling a vehicle while drunk, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 11 March 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 4 April 2008, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 of this regulation establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.   

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct by military personnel.  Furthermore, the analyst noted that even though a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       
       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 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.  The applicant’s 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.  
       
       Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 23 May 2012         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: Online application, dated 9 Nov 2011; Report of Behavioral Health Eval, dated 28 Jan 2008.

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. 
        
IX.  Board Decision						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)

X.  Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to: 
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:





Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder
?????



Legend:
AWOL    	Absent Without Leave		GCM   General Court Martial	NA   Not applicable			SCM	Summary Court Martial
BCD   	Bad Conduct Discharge	GD      General Discharge	NIF   Not in the file			SPCM	Special Court Martial
CG 	Company Grade Article 15	HD      Honorable Discharge	OAD   Ordered to Active Duty		UNC	Uncharacterized Discharge  
DD 	Dishonorable Discharge	HS       High School Graduate	OMPF   Official Military Personnel File	UOTH  	Under Other Than Honorable 
FG	Field Grade Article 15		IADT   Initial Active Duty Training	RE     Reentry Code				Conditions 
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20110023574
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 3 pages