IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr.

      BOARD DATE:  	29 July 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120019497
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the characterization of service was too harsh based on the length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service and that his testimony was creditable, and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.



      
      
      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 his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions or honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he joined the Army at the age of 17.  He excelled in basic training and was a very motivated and respectful Soldier.  He deployed to Iraq and after his return he had trouble coping with all the death and injuries of his friends.  He later worked at West Point Military Academy where he trained officers and received a letter of achievement.  He contends he was diagnosed with PTSD and was put on many different medications that caused him to become dependent on them.  He is currently working a full time job and as a firefighter.  He contends he did his part fighting for his country and training new officers and should not be stuck with a negative discharge.  He was young and had trouble adjusting to life without his friends.  He has now overcome his addiction and his life is starting to come back together.  He has suffered with the effects of the negative discharge for almost three years now and request that consideration be given to upgrade his discharge to honorable for his service to his country.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:


a. Application Receipt Date:			15 October 2012
b. Discharge Received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				1 March 2010
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	  	Misconduct (Serious Offense), Chapter 14,								paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:				C Co, 4th Bn, 31st IN Rgt, Fort Drum, NY
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		13 June 2006, 3 years and 16 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:		3 years, 4 months
h. Total Service:				3 years, 4 months (block 12c "net active 									service this period" should read 3 years and 								4 months, to account for the period of time lost 								for AWOL and confinement.)
i. Time Lost:					111 days 
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		11B10, Infantryman
m. GT Score:					102
n. Education:					GED
o. Overseas Service:				Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:				Iraq (070110-071027)
q. Decorations/Awards:			NDSM, ICM-w/CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CIB
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No
s. Performance Ratings:			None
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				Yes, 29 February 2012, administratively 									corrected RE code to read "3."
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		

The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 June 2006, for a period of 3 years and 16 weeks.  He was 19 years old and had a high school equivalency (GED).  He served a tour of combat in Iraq and received the CIB.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  He completed 3 years and 4 months of total active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 27 January 2010, 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 (serious offense).  Specifically for the following offenses: 

a. being drunk and disorderly (081101)
b. absenting himself from his unit (AWOL) (090626-091014)

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.

3.  On 27 January 2010, the applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

4.  On 24 February 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

5.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 1 March 2010, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 4.

6.  On 29 February 2012, the Army Discharge Review Board by majority voted to administratively correct block 27, RE code of the applicant's DD Form 214 to show a RE code of "3."

7.  The applicant's record of service indicates 111 days of time lost for being AWOL from       26 June 2009 until his apprehension on 14 October 2009.  SCM documents indicate the applicant was sentenced to 30 days confinement, however, the period of confinement is not indicated on the DD Form 214 under review.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 15 January 2009, for being drunk and disorderly (081101).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, extra duty for 45 days, restriction for    45 days, and an oral reprimand, (FG).

2.  SCM, dated 19 January 2010, for going AWOL (090626-091014).  The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $965.00 pay per month for one month and confinement for 30 days.

3.  Three negative counseling statements, dated between 5 November 2008 and 21 October 2009 for disorderly conduct, dereliction of duty, failure to obey a direct order, and lying to a noncommissioned officer.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, self-authored statement explaining his contention, copy of deployment orders, dated 4 January 2007, certificate of achievement, his deployment history, copy of a certificate for successful completion of individual basic combat training, certificated of authenticity, copy of his oath of enlistment, redeployment information memorandum from his unit, and two documents reference receiving firefighter training.  

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states he is currently working as a firefighter in California.

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, the documents 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 general or a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by his SCM and Article 15 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and his negative counseling statements.

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 that at the time of discharge he was very young.  The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

5.  The applicant contends he served honorably; therefore his characterization of service should be upgraded.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the incidents of misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


6.  The applicant also contends he was diagnosed with PTSD, put on medication, and later became addictive to the medication.  However, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  Furthermore, AR 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self-referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance.  The record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.

7.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

8.  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: Personal Appearance	  Date: 29 July 2013   Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes 

Counsel: yes [ redacted ]

Witnesses/Observers: yes (Attorney Observer) 

DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE:

1.  The applicant submitted no additional documents. The applicant presented no additional contentions.

In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing.

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

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:		Yes
Change Characterization to:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
Change Reason to:			No Change
Change Authority for Separation:	NA
Change RE Code to:		NA
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)		AR20120019497



Page 4 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1