IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	12 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120022612
___________________________________________________________________________

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 from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he served nine years without getting in trouble; however, when he had issues going on in his life, he started drinking and was discharged.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	3 December 2012
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, under honorable conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	26 March 2012
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure / AR 635-200, Chapter 9 
			/ JPD /RE-4
	e.	Unit of assignment:	HHT, AR, Fort Bliss, TX
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	23 October 2008 / 6 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 5 months, 4 days
	h.	Total Service:	9 years, 1 month, 1 day
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	RA (030226-081022) / HD
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	68W (Health Care Specialist)
	m.	GT Score:	103
	n.	Education:	High School Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	Korea, SWA
	p.	Combat Service:	Iraq (091116-100729)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	ARCOM-2; AAM-2; AGCM-2; NDSM; ICM-CS; 
			GWOTSM; KDSM; NPDR; ASR; OSR
	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 23 October 2006 for a period of 7 years and 7 months, and reenlisted on 23 October 2008 for 6 years.  He was 26 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Iraq and Korea.  He earned two ARCOM and two AAM awards.  He completed 9 years, 1 month, and 1 day 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 digitally authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates that on 26 March 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, for alcohol rehabilitation failure, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JPD and a reentry (RE) code of 4.  

3.  The applicant’s available record does not show any recorded actions under the UCMJ, unauthorized absences or time lost.  However, he was separated as a PFC/E-3 and the action that caused his reduction is not contained in the service record.]

4.  On 21 March 2012, DA, HQ, 1st Armored Division and Fort Bliss, Fort Bliss, TX, Orders Number 081-0006, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 26 March 2012.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

None.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided DD Form 293, dated 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 and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse.  

2.  A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.  

3.  Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on the applicant’s overall record of service.  However, an honorable discharge is required if limited use information is used in the discharge process.




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 only pertinent evidence available for review regarding the applicant's discharge is the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, which was digitally authenticated by the applicant.  The DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, for alcohol rehabilitation failure. 

3.  For this type of discharge, the applicant would have been enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) and would have been aware of the consequences of any action which would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program.  Inasmuch as the applicant's official record is void of the circumstances leading to his discharge, it is presumed that he was identified as a rehabilitation failure subsequent to his enrollment in the ASAP program.  Therefore, it is also presumed that the applicant was properly counseled and afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome his problems, and chose not to avail himself of this opportunity. 

4.  The applicant's contentions about having served nine years without getting into trouble were carefully considered.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to any 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.  Moreover, 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.  The applicant contends that he was having issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged.  However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  

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)		AR20120022612



Page 4 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1