IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr.

      BOARD DATE:  	24 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120022898
___________________________________________________________________________

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, he had one violation of an order during 48 months of service.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		10 December 2012
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			29 February 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct , AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, JKA
      RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			E Battery, 4-5th ADA Regt, Fort Hood, TX  
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	8 June 2011, 4 years 
g. Current Enlistment Service:	8 months, 22 days
h. Total Service:			4 years, 0 months, 10 days				
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (080221-110607)/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	14G10, Air Defense Battle Management System 						Operator 
m. GT Score:				104
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			SWA
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (090308-100218)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM NDSM, ICM-W/CS 							GWOTSM, NPDR, ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		No		
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 21February 2008, for a period of 4 years,         21 weeks.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  On 8 June 2011, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years and was 22 years old at the time. He was serving at Fort Hood, TX, when his discharge was initiated.  His record also shows that he served a combat tour and earned several awards including an ARCOM and an AAM.






SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s record is void of the complete 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 was 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.  On 8 February 2012, 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.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

The record does not contain any actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or any counseling statements.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 4 December 2012.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any.

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 his available military records and the issue 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.  Regarding the applicant's contention he had one violation of an order during 48 months of service.  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:  24 April 2013          Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

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 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)		AR20120022898



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1