IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	12 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120022607
___________________________________________________________________________

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 and a change to the RE code.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was separated for reasons of having sex with other personnel, fighting with another platoon member, and lying to CID.  He was not provided the opportunity to explain the situation for the charges, but would like to do so at this time for consideration toward upgrading his discharge and the restriction of the negative RE code.  He provides his explanations in his self-authored statements and adds that it was the only time he got into any trouble within the five years of military service.  He apologizes for the offenses and asks for another chance to being a Soldier.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	6 December 2012
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, under honorable conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	1 April 2010
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (serious offense) / AR 635-200, 
			Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	C Company, 2-227th General Support Aviation 
			Battalion, 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, Camp Taji, Iraq
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	2 March 2007 / 6 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 1 month
	h.	Total Service:	4 years, 9 months, 3 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	RA (050629-070301) / HD
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	15T (UH-60 Helicopter Repairer)
	m.	GT Score:	108
	n.	Education:	GED
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA
	p.	Combat Service:	Iraq (061023-080105), (090425-100217)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	ARCOM; NDSM; ICM-3CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR-2; 
			CAB; MUC
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 June 2005, and reenlisted on 2 March 2007, for a period of 6 years.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and completed his education through GED.  He served in Iraq.  He earned an ARCOM award and completed 4 years, 9 months, and 3 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 1 March 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200.  Specifically for receiving a FG Article 15 for the following offenses:  

a. failing to report to appointed place of duty at the prescribed time 
b. violating General Order No. 1
c. making false official statement
d. assaulting a Soldier
e. committing adultery

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

3.  On 2 March 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action 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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 28 August 2007, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

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

6.  The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  An illegible Article 15; however, described in the commander’s forwarding memorandum at a FG Article 15 (100217), failure to report, violating General Order No. 1, making false official statement, assaulting a Soldier, committing adultery.  The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $500 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty, oral reprimand.

2.  A counseling statement, dated 24 February 2010, for initiation of separation proceedings for commission of a serious offense.

3.  An illegible CID Report, dated 23 September 2009 through 7 October 2009, for rape of an enlisted Soldier in Iraq.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided DD Form 293, dated 3 December 2012 with two self-authored statements; DD Form 214 for service under current review; Congressional correspondence.

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 and a change to the RE code 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 or a change to the RE code.  

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 fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Articles 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and a negative counseling statement.

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 he had good service and that the offenses that led to his discharge were the only time he got into trouble during his five years of service.  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 repeated incidents of misconduct and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

5.  The applicant has requested a change to the reentry code (RE) in order to rejoin the Service.  However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Based on AR 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3.  There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code.  An RE Code of 3 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.

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.  Accordingly, the records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

7.  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:  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)		AR20120022607



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1