IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	17 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120022122
___________________________________________________________________________

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 fully honorable.

2.  He states, in effect, there was insufficient evidence to support the accusations for chapter proceedings as a pattern of misconduct.    

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		30 November 2012
b. Discharge Received:		General, under honorable conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:			20 September 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, paragraph
      14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			Co A, 501st Bde Spt Bn, Fort Bliss, TX
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	12 October 2010, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 11 months, 9 days 
h. Total Service:			1 year, 11 months, 9 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-2	
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	89B10, Ammunition Spec
m. GT Score:				NIF
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	NIF
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		NIF	
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 October 2010, for a period of 4 years; he was 20 years old at the time and a high school graduate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 89B, Ammunition Spec.  He was serving at Fort Bliss, TX when his discharge was initiated.  He did not have any personally earned awards or significant achievement in his service record and did not have any combat service.  He served for 1 year, 11 months and 9 days. 

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army.  The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which authenticated by the applicant’s digital signature.  

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The DD Form 214 shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKA and a reentry (RE) code of 3.  

3.  There is no record of any UCMJ action, although the applicant was discharged as a   PVT/E-1.  The action that reduced him in rank is not in his record.

4.  The applicant was separated under Orders 261-0027, DA, HQS, 1st Armored Division & Fort Bliss, Fort Bliss, TX, with an effective date of 20 September 2012.  

5.  The applicant’s record does not show any record of unauthorized absences or lost time.   

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 

DD Form 293, dated 29 October 2012; and a Memorandum, Senior Defense Counsel, dated 24 August 2012.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any with the application.

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 and the reason for his discharge were carefully considered.  However, after examining his available military records, the issue and document submitted with the application, there are insufficient 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, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, 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 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's contention regarding insufficient evidence to support the accusations for chapter proceedings as a pattern of misconduct was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service.  Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge.  

5.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record.
6.  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: 17 April 2013    Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

Counsel: NA

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 RE Code to: No Change	
Grade Restoration to: NA	
Change Authority for Separation:	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)		AR20120022122



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1