IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	10 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120020254
___________________________________________________________________________

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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant submitted no issues of equity or propriety.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		22 October 2012			
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions		
c. Date of Discharge:			2 July 2007				
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200
      paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3	
e. Unit of assignment: 			HHC, 1/28th In, Fort Riley, KS	
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	17 October 2005, for 4 years and 18 weeks		
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 7 months, 19 days	
h. Total Service:			1 year, 7 months, 19 days	
i. Time Lost:				28 days 
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-1
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	11B10/Infantryman
m. GT Score:				109
n. Education:				GED
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None 
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 October 2005, for a period of four years and 18 weeks.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Infantryman.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  





SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 9 June 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct, for the commission of serious offenses; specifically for:

	a. failing to report on several occasions
	b. breaking restriction
	c. being disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer
	d. disobeying an order from a noncommissioned officer
         	e. underage drinking on several occasions
	f.  possession of alcohol while underage
	g. drunk and disorderly

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and informed the applicant of his rights.

3.  On 14 June 2007, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on his 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 of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 28 June 2007, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for the commission of serious offenses.

5.  The applicant was separated on 2 July 2007, under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c (Misconduct-Serious Offense), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ and an RE code of 3.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  A field grade Article 15 issued 27 April 2006, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty 16 March 2006; being disrespectful in deportment towards a noncommissioned officer 13 May 2006; and disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer 9 May 2006.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $636.00 per month for two months; extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days.

2.  A field grade Article 15 issued 9 June 2006, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty 13 May 2006; underage drinking 29 November 2005; and drunk and disorderly conduct 26 March 2006.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $636.00 per month for two months; extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days.

3.  A field grade Article 15 issued 11 April 2007, for going AWOL, 10 January 2007 to               6 February 2007, and failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on           16 March 2006.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $650.00 pay per month for two months and extra duty and restriction for 45 days.

4.  A field grade Article 15 issued on 1 June 2007, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty 27 April 2007; disobeying a lawful command from a commissioned officer 27 April 2007; breaking restriction 26 April 2007; underage drinking 19 April 2007 and 26 April 2007; and unlawfully possessing alcohol while underage 19 April 2007.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $650.00 pay per month for two months and extra duty for 45 days.

5.  There are 19 negative counseling’s dated between 13 March 2006 and 23 October 2006 for numerous instances of failing to report to his designated place of duty, failure to obey orders, and being AWOL.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided no additionally documents with her application.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None provided by the applicant.  

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 was carefully considered.  However, after examining his military records 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 acts of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s service was marred by four Articles 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and many negative counseling statements.

3.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

4.  The applicant submitted no issues of equity or propriety to be considered by the Board.

5.  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: None

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: NA
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)		AR20120020254



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1