IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  2 December 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130004201 


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 that his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he has learned a valuable lesson and wishes to continue his growth into an upstanding citizen.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 July 2001.  Upon completion of initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 89B (Engineer).  The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was specialist/E-4.

2.  His military service record reveals:

	a.  he was referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program on 29 April 2004 following an alcohol-related incident.

	b.  he had several adverse counseling sessions for:

* being drunk on duty
* failing to report to accountability formations
* departing his appointed place of duty
* being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer (NCO)
* drug abuse
* alcohol abuse
* anger management
* personal appearance
* potential for elimination from the service with a less than honorable discharge unless his duty performance and conduct improved

3.  On 10 January 2005, the applicant's unit commander notified him he was initiating action which could result in separation from the Army with a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for commission of numerous serious offenses:  numerous occasions of failing to report to his place of duty, disrespecting an NCO, and reporting to work while under the influence of alcohol.  He was advised of his rights and the impact of the discharge.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification and his right to consult with counsel.

4.  He consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish his separation for misconduct and its effects; the rights available to him; and the effects of any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  He also indicated his understanding that if he received a discharge certificate or character of service which was less than honorable, he could make application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for upgrading; however, he realized that an act of consideration by either board did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded.

5.  The unit commander subsequently recommended that the applicant be separated from the service based on his commission of serious offenses.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general discharge under honorable conditions.

6.  The separation authority approved the applicant's separation and directed that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  He determined his service would be characterized as under honorable conditions and that he would be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

7.  On 11 February 2005, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows:

* his service was characterized as under honorable conditions
* he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c
* his narrative reason for separation was "Misconduct"

8.  The applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge so he could utilize the GI Bill to further his education.  On 26 January 2012, by letter, the applicant was advised that after careful review of his application, military records, his testimony, and all other available evidence, the ADRB determined he was properly and equitably discharged.  Accordingly, his request for a change in the character and/or reason of his discharge was denied.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 deals with separation for various types of misconduct and provides that individuals identified as offenders may be separated prior to their normal date of expiration of term of service.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his record should be corrected by upgrading his discharge to an honorable discharge was carefully considered.

2.  The evidence shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the statutes and regulations in effect at the time.  There is no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

3.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the quality of the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel to warrant an honorable discharge.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.

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)                                         AR20130004201





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130004201



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1