IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 July 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130017931 


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 an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general discharge or an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

   a.  Considering he had completed four years on active duty and received an honorable discharge, he finds it wrong and unjustified that this reserve unit would place a UOTHC discharge on his records because of a simple misunderstanding. He would simply like his discharge upgraded to something a bit more respectable considering his prior honorable service to this great nation.  How can 1 1/2 years of reserve service supersede 4 years of actual active duty service, meaning if you were to place both of his service periods on Lady Liberty's scales, which would hold more weight?

   b.  He joined the 1880th Medical Command Detachment reserve unit under the notion that they had a single Active Guard Reserve (AGR) slot open for him.  All that was required of him was to reclassify to the unit specific military occupational specialty (MOS).  After 10 months in the unit, he finally received orders to go to school to change his primary MOS to 68J (medical logistics specialist).

   c.  Once he had returned to the unit, unbeknownst to him, a fellow reservist had taken that slot he was waiting on.  At the time, he began inquiring about returning to active duty since he could no longer be an AGR reservist.  The unit stated that would not be a problem, all they had to do was drop him from the unit so that an active duty unit could pick him up once a recruiter got everything processed.  

   d.  Once he met with the recruiter to start the ball rolling, the issue with his probation for driving while intoxicated he received in 2007 arose.  The recruiter advised him that since 2008 they could no longer speak to a judge on behalf of a Soldier in order to have the probation lifted to expedite the process.  He was advised that he would have to wait until the probation was completed to reenlist on active duty.

   e.  As he was waiting for his probation to be over, he received a package which notified him of missing multiple drills and that he was being discharged.  He was asked if he wanted a court-martial or to just let the unit handle it.  He chose the court-martial.  He did not learn of his UOTHC discharge until August 2009.  After the recruiter advised him to wait and get back to him after completing probation, he had no idea he was supposed to return and report to his previous unit for duty.

   f.  When he was dropped from the unit, he had signed multiple paperwork in order for that to take place.  In hindsight, he knew that was not the case.  They reduced him in rank/grade and issued a UOTHC discharge.  He just doesn't see the justification in that.  If he were that dishonorable a Soldier, how could he have completed 4 years on active duty and receive an honorable discharge?  

   g.  He has attempted many times in several different states to return to the military.  Every recruiter has no idea what that unit put on his records and its new to them.  He has seen Soldiers who have done a lot worse and they have not received an eighth of what they put him through.  He has exhausted all other possible options outside of writing to the President of the United States.  

   h.  This has been such a pain for him and his family.  He just doesn't understand how this unit felt justified in throwing the book at him for something he had not a single clue about.  In his mind he was going back on active duty.  He thought everyone in the unit was all right with how he carried himself during drills and annual training.  He doesn't know why they came down so hard on him. It was just uncalled for and was unprecedented.

3.  The applicant provides copies of Orders Number 08-265-00013.





CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 10 February 2001, for 8 years.  He was discharged from the DEP on 4 June 2001.

2.  He enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 5 June 2001, for 4 years.  He served as an automated logistical specialist.  

3.  He was honorably released from active duty, in pay grade E-4, on 31 May 2005, and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete his reserve service obligation.  He was credited with completing 3 years, 11 months, and 26 days of net active service with no time lost.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) lists his reserve service obligation date as 9 February 2009.

4.  His record is void of the facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge; however, he provided a copy of and his record contains Orders Number 08-265-00013, issued by Headquarters, Army Reserve Medical Command, dated 
21 September 2008, reducing him to pay grade E-1 and discharging him from the USAR effective 28 September 2008, under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve Enlisted Administrative Separations), with a UOTHC discharge.

5.  On 10 February 2012, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

6.  Army Regulation 135-178, in effect at the time, provided for the orderly administrative separation of USAR enlisted Soldiers.  The regulation provided for the involuntary separation from the USAR for specific categories including unsatisfactory participation.  When a Soldier was subject to discharge for unsatisfactory participation the characterization of service normally would be UOTHC, but characterization as general (under honorable conditions) could be warranted.  

7.  Army Regulation 135-178 also stated in:

   a.  Paragraph 2-9a – an honorable discharge was appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
   
   b.  Paragraph 2-9b – if a Soldier’s service had been honest and faithful, it was appropriate to characterize that service as under honorable conditions.  Characterization of service as general was awarded to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available for review with this case.  However, he provides and his records contain orders showing he was discharged on 28 September 2008 for what appears to be for being an unsatisfactory participant.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time. 

2.  His active duty service from 5 June 2001 to 31 May 2005 for which he received an honorable characterization of service has no bearing on his subsequent USAR service.  He completed his active duty service but he still had remaining service obligations. 

3.  Notwithstanding his 2005 honorable characterization of service, he provided no evidence or a convincing argument to show his 2008 USAR discharge should be upgraded and his military records contain no evidence which would entitle him to an upgrade of this discharge.  There is no evidence he requested assistance with any problems he may have been having during his period of reserve service. The evidence shows his conduct and performance diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general or fully honorable discharge during his period of service in the USAR.

4.  He appears to have been properly discharged in 2008 in accordance with pertinent regulations with due process.  Therefore, he is not entitled to the requested relief.

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)                                         AR20130017931





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130017931



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1