IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	10 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120017778
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.






      
      
      Presiding Officer
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case.

THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

1 The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he had some family issues and his chain of command did not afford him time to resolve these issues.    

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		20 September 2012
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			22 December 2005
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct , AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ
      RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HHC, 6th Ranger Training Battalion, Fort Benning 						GA  
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	25 August 2003, 4 years 
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 2 months, 29 days
h. Total Service:			5 year, 3 months, 1 day/to account for period of 						AWOL
i. Time Lost:				30 days
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (000823-030824)/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	11B10 Infantryman
m. GT Score:				96
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			SWA
p. Combat Service:			Afghanistan (040320-041204)
q. Decorations/Awards:		AGCM-2, NDSM, ACM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR						CIB
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		None		
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 August 2000, for a period of 4 years.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and was a high school graduate.  On 25 August 2003, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years and was 21 years old at the time. He was serving at Fort Benning, GA, when his discharge was initiated.  His record also shows that he served a combat tour and earned several awards including an AGCM-2 and a CIB.




SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 6 December 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct for the following offenses:

                    a. AWOL from 051004-051103 
         b. adultery
         c. numerous failures to repair   

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 6 December 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board (although he was not entitled to a board) and did not submit a statement on 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 9 December 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

5.  The applicant's record shows he was AWOL for 30 days during the period 4 October 2005 through 3 November 2005.  However, this period of lost time is not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29 dates of time lost during this period.   The mode of return is unknown. 

6.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 22 December 2005, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and a RE code of 3.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  The record does not contain any actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  However, the unit commander’s recommendation memorandum indicated the applicant received an Article 15; the punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $617 pay x 2 months and extra duty for 14 days.

2.  The record does not contain any counseling statements.   

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 4 December 2012.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 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, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent 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.   

2.  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.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

3.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.

2.  The record confirms 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 and performance of duty by military personnel.  It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  By the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  

3.  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.

4.  The applicant contends he had some family issues and his chain of command did not afford him time to resolve these issues. However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  

5.  Further, a review of the service record does not reveal any evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the applicant’s command.  It appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.   
     
6.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

7.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief.

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review        Date:  10 April 2013          Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel: No

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  0	No Change:  5
Reason Change:	0	No Change:  5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:	No
Change Characterization to: No Change	
Change Reason to:	No Change
Change Authority for Separation: No Change
Change RE Code to: No Change	
Grade Restoration to: NA	
Other: NA


Legend:
AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record	FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	 	RE - Reentry
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NA - Not applicable	SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
CID - Criminal investigation Department	MP – Military Police	OMPF - Official Military Personnel File	UOTHC - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions



ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20120017778



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1