IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  8 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150001180 


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 a change of his narrative reason for separation.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he had no pattern of misconduct in the military or in civilian life.

3.  The applicant provides:

* American Legion letter, dated 6 January 2015
* self-authored statement, dated 27 November 2014
* ProDrivers letter, dated 1 December 2014
* character reference letter, dated 18 November 2014
* South University Unofficial Transcript, dated 2 December 2014
* Grids Security Services, LLC, letter of recommendation, dated 17 November 2014
* DA Form 4833 (Commander's Report of Disciplinary or Administration Action), suspense dated 24 April 2008
* DA Form 3875 (Military Police Report), dated 22 February 2008
* Standard Form 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 20 February, 21 February, and 22 February 2008
* Petition for Protective Order (Domestic Violence), dated 20 April 2010
* Request to Modify or Dissolve Protective Order, dated 3 June 2010
* Motion and Affidavit for an Emergency Hearing, dated 14 November 2011
* letters of support from his parents and sister
* 
Divorce Decree and Order Adopting Martial Settlement Agreement, dated 3 September 2014

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years and 24 weeks on 19 October 2005.  He completed training as a petroleum supply specialist.  He reenlisted for 5 years on 8 May 2007.

2.  The Military Police Report dated 22 February 2008, shows the applicant communicated a threat by telephone on post on 15 February 2008. 

3.  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 2 November 2009 for:

   a.  being disrespectful in deportment towards a noncommissioned officer (NCO) who was in the execution of his office (three times);

   b.  assaulting an NCO who was in the execution of his office; and 

   c.  failing to obey a lawful order.

4.  On 22 April 2010, officials within the applicant's chain of command were notified that on 21 April 2010, his wife delivered a protective order against him to the Provost Marshal’s Office.  The order went into effect on 20 April 2010 and expired 20 days after issuance.

5.  On 13 May 2010, the applicant was counseled and he was told he was being "chaptered" due to patterns of misconduct.  He was informed of the consequences of receiving a less than fully honorable discharge.  The applicant indicated that he disagreed with the counseling because the information was false and the counseling was improper.

6.  On 10 June 2010, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge due to a pattern of misconduct.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification on 16 June 2010.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit statements in his own behalf.  He submitted statements from his platoon leader and commanding officer attesting to the tremendous improvement the applicant had made in his behavior and performance.  According to the applicant’s commanding officer, the applicant had become an exemplary Soldier. 


7.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf requesting to be retained in the Army.  He stated:

* he was a good Soldier and an asset to the Army
* he had progressed in his military career and rehabilitated himself since he received the NJP in November 2009
* he made bad choices during his last deployment to Afghanistan and as a result he was reduced from specialist to private/E-2
* he received counseling and had been promoted to private first class
* he had beautiful daughters and his plans were to pursue his Army occupation while positively influencing future Soldiers

8.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a discharge under honorable conditions (general).  Accordingly, 
on 5 August 2010, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12B, due to a pattern of misconduct with a general discharge.  He completed 4 years, 9 months, and 17 days of net active service this period.  

9.  A Commander's Report of Disciplinary or Administration Action dated 
24 October 2013 shows on 15 February 2008 the applicant communicated a threat by telephone.  A check of the unit records could not validate whether action was taken on this offense; therefore, the Commanders Report was closed due to no records being available.  

10.  On 10 March 2014 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded his characterization of service from general to fully honorable, based on his overall record of service.  However, the ADRB determined that his narrative reason for separation was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.

11.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter explaining the events surrounding his discharge.  He contends that he never threatened his ex-wife and that is why no action was taken on the allegations that she made against him.  He provides a letter from a co-worker and another individual attesting to his post-service conduct, his efficient work habits, and enthusiasm to learn.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions (a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives) and reasons for the separation of members from active military service and the SPD codes to be used for these stated reasons.  The SPD code of JKA applies to individuals discharged for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been noted; however, they appear to lack merit.

2.  The available evidence clearly shows a pattern of misconduct in relation to the applicant’s service.  Not taking into account the alleged threat for which no action was taken against him in 2008, in 2009 he accepted NJP for several acts of misconduct and in 2010 a protection order was issued against him by his wife.

3.  Although a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate for the authority and reason for which the applicant was discharged, it appears the separation authority considered his overall record of service and determined that his service warranted a general characterization.  On 10 March 2014, the ADRB upgraded his characterization of service from general to fully honorable, based on his overall record of service, and determined that his narrative reason for separation was proper and equitable and denied changing it.

4.  His records show he was discharged for misconduct – pattern of misconduct on 5 August 2010 and he was assigned an SPD code of JKA which coincides with his narrative reason for separation.

5.  He has not shown error or injustice in the narrative reason for separation he received.  






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)                                         AR20150001180



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001180



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1