IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	5 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120020360
___________________________________________________________________________

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 that his discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he did nothing wrong and he has the paperwork to back it up.  He received a Red Cross letter stating that his father had stage 4 cancer.  He followed his chain of command and talked with anyone who would offer him some help to deal with his issue.  He tried to get out on a hardship but was told he couldn’t.  He showed proof that he made a lot of money outside of the Army and provided the documents and was under the impression that he was released from the Army.  He received an e-mail stating that he was AWOL and he came back on his own.  He just didn’t like the fact that when it came to his family no one would help him.  He would like to join the Army again if allowed.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			31 October 2012
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				18 May 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Misconduct (AWOL), AR 635-200, paragraph 
						14-12c(1)
e. Unit of assignment:				93rd Vertical Company, 46th Engineer Battalion
Fort Polk, LA.		
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		13 August 2009, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		2 years, 1 month, 29 days
h. Total Service:				2 years, 1 month, 29 days
i. Time Lost:					222 days
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			PFC/E03
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		12W10 Carpentry and Masonry
m. GT Score:					95
n. Education:					HS Graduate
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:			None
u. Prior Board Review:				No




SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 August 2009 for a period of 4 years.  He was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He earned a NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR and completed 2 years, 1 month, and 29 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 1 May 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, commission of a serious offense, specifically for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 27 June 2011 to 3 February 2012.

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

3.  On 2 may 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit a statement in 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 15 May 2012, the separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 18 May 2012, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, a SPD code of JKQ, and a RE code of 3.  

6.  The applicant's record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) during the period    through 27 June 2011 to 3 February 2012.  He surrendered to the military authorities at Fort Polk, Louisiana. 

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  There is a DD Form 553 (Deserter/Absentee Wanted by the Armed Forces) Report dated 28 July 2011, alerting the appropriate authorities that the applicant was wanted by the military authorities.    

2.  Four DA Form 4187’s (Personnel Action) reports with various dates contained in the record in reference to the applicant’s period of AWOL, and a DD Form 616 (Report of Return of Absentee) dated 3 April 2012, showing the mode of the applicant’s return to military control. 

3.  The applicant made a sworn statement dated 9 February 2012, indicating he went AWOL to care for his family and he made another sworn statement dated 28 February 2012, with supporting documents, attesting to his interest and accomplishments in the music business. 

4.  A copy of a letter dated 1 December 2010, addressed to the applicant’s Senator from the Director, Human Resources, Fort Polk, Louisiana in reference to the applicant’s desire for a hardship or dependency separation. 

5.  Memorandum for record dated 12 March 2012, in response to the Congressional Inquiry on the separation of the applicant which was approved on the installation level on 2 May 2012, and was forward to the Secretary of the Army through FORSCOM.  The legal office at FORSCOM sent the packet back until the applicant could complete the Army Career Alumni Program (ACAP), a congressionally mandated requirement.  The Paralegal NCOIC and the applicant’s former chain of command was working on the packet after it returned and informed the applicant about the required classes but the applicant went AWOL on 27 June 2011 and the processing of his separation packet ceased. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

1.  The applicant provided a copy of his successful reservation for basic combat training and advanced individual training, assignment orders to his unit and awarding him a Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), Certificate of Completion of the Carpentry/Masonry Course dated 11 February 2010; US Senator letter’s dated 1 November 2010, 10 December 2010.

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 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.  The misconduct 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.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by his 222 days of AWOL.  

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 followed his chain of command and talked with anyone who would offer him some help to deal with his issue.  He just didn’t like the fact that when it came to his family no one would help him.  He would like to join the Army again if allowed.  

5.  While the applicant may believe his situation at home was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from his family issue through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.  

6.  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.   

7.  At the time of separation the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 3 which indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist.  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 
8.  In view of the foregoing, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, it is recommend to the Board that relief be denied.  

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: Records Review      Date:  5 April 2013	Location: Washington, DC

Counsel: None

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: NA	
Change Reason to:	NA
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)		AR20120020360



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1