IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	12 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120022072
___________________________________________________________________________

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 characterization from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he would like to pursue his education.  His late NCO told him that he would be able to have his discharge changed after six months.  The NCO further told him that going AWOL was the way to get out of the Army without getting in trouble even after he told him that he did not want to be out of the Army.  He feels his discharge was unfair, because he was having problems with his wife and he was not handling it well.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	23 November 2012
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, under honorable conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	14 July 2011
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b 
			/ JKA / RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	Rear Detachment, 3-7 FA Bn, Schofield Barracks, HI
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	13 January 2010 / 3 years, 25 weeks
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 4 months, 18 days 
	h.	Total Service:	1 year, 4 months, 18 days
	i.	Time Lost:	44 days, AWOL (110601-110714)
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-2
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	91F (Small Arms / Artillery)
	m.	GT Score:	NIF
	n.	Education:	High School Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	Hawaii
	p.	Combat Service:	NIF
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	NIF
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 January 2010 for a period of 3 years and 25 weeks.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Hawaii.  There is no record that he earned any awards.  He completed 1 year, 4 months, and 18 days of active duty service.




SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates that on 14 July 2011, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, for pattern of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKA and a reentry (RE) code of 3.  

3.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed 1 year, 4 months, and 18 days of creditable active military service and accrued 44 days of time lost due to being AWOL.

4.  On 28 June 2011, DA USAG-Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, HI, Orders Number 179-0016, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 14 July 2011.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

There are no counseling statements or UCMJ actions in the record.  However, he was discharged as a PVT/E-1; the action that reduced him in rank is not available in his record.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided DD Form 293, dated 20 November 2012; DD Form 214 for service under current review.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none. 

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 issues and document submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The DD Form 214 also indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b by reason of pattern of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

3.  The applicant's contention that his discharge was unfair was carefully considered.  However, it is not possible to determine if these contentions have merit because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown.  The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence (i.e. discharge packet) sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet this burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record.

4.  The applicant’s contention about being told that he may have his discharge upgraded after six months have elapsed since the discharge was carefully considered.  However, each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable.

5.  The applicant contends he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to his misconduct.  Specifically, he claims family issues at home contributed to his discharge.  While the applicant may believe his family issue was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from stress 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.

6.  The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow him educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill.  However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.

7.  Therefore, based on the available evidence and the government presumption of regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief.

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: 	Records Review	  Date: 12 April 2013        Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

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:	N/A
Change RE Code to:	N/A
Grade Restoration to:	N/A
Other:	N/A





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)		AR20120022072



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1