IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	24 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120022759
___________________________________________________________________________

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 to upgrade his characterization of service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect and in pertinent part, that he decided to enlist to give him experience quickly, help him grow and mature, and to pay for college.  He had initially decided to join the Reserve component to remain with his family; however, after a few short months, he realized that the only way to get the full experience was to switch to the Active component, and so he did in July 2006, and deployed to Iraq.  Upon returning from deployment and the many months that followed, copious amounts of awards, certificates, and medals were awarded to well deserving soldiers including him. Now, given the nature of his discharge, it would appear he was a poor Soldier, and wasn’t capable or deserving of the awards he received.  However, the truth is that most of the negative actions against me were either misunderstandings gone wrong, or the actions of his command trying to make an example out of one Soldier for small infractions, and many of them contributed to his discharge.  With over 5 years of service and a 15-month deployment, as the senior mechanic, he was instrumental in the success of a plethora of missions, he attended the warrior leadership course based on his unit’s desire for him to be an NCO, and was awarded Army Good Conduct Medals, mechanic badge, and among other awards.  He believes all the accomplishments and the services rendered outweigh the handful of infractions which led to his discharge.  He asks for an upgrade so that he can attend college and pursue the dream he had long before he decided to serve his country, and for which he gave his service to protect.  (Note:  see his detailed self-authored statement.)
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	17 December 2012
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	17 September 2010
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b 
			JKA / RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	Forward Support Company, 94th Engineer Battalion, 			4th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade, Fort Leonard 				Wood, MO
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	14 March 2008 / 6 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 6 months, 4 days
	h.	Total Service:	5 years, 1 month, 19 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	USAR (050729-060713) / HD
			RA (060714-080313) / HD
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	91B (Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic)
	m.	GT Score:	109
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA
	p.	Combat Service:	Iraq (071010-081215)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	ARCOM; AGCM; NDSM; ICM-CS; GWOTSM; 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 14 July 2006, and reenlisted on 14 March 2008 for a period of 6 years.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Iraq.  He earned an ARCOM and an AGCM.  He has completed 5 years, 1 month, and 19 days of military service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 27 August 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct.  Specifically for the following offenses:  

a. Failing to report X 7 (091104, 091116, 091119, 091216, 100430, 100516, 100811)
b. failing to obey an NCO order (100906)
c. writing a check with insufficient funds on (100119)
d. sleeping on post while posted as a guard on (100713)
e. disobeying an a commissioned officer’s order

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

3.  On 31 August 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 10 September 2010, 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 was discharged from the Army on 17 September 2010, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3. 

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

The applicant has a separation case file that has limited information.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided DD Form 214 for service under current review, a self-authored statement, Oath of Reenlistment, dated 14 March 2008, and an HD certificate, dated 13 March 2008.

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 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.  It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by the numerous incidents of misconduct that established a pattern of misconduct cited by the unit commander.

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 during his years of service and deployment, and was instrumentally successful in accomplishing numerous missions.  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.

5.  The applicant has expressed his desire to have perhaps better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Further, 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.

6.  Based on a careful review, it is determined that the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.   The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record.  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:  24 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)		AR20120022759



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1