IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	17 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130000165
___________________________________________________________________________

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 the characterization his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that while in the military, he was on leave and taken into custody by the local law enforcement agency.  He was discharged before being sentenced and the discharge was not completed properly as he was unable to defend himself prior to the discharge.  He is requesting review for a possible upgrade due to his circumstances.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	26 December 2012
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	14 June 2002
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14, Section II 
			JKB, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	HHC, 1/68th Armored Battalion, Fort Carson, CO
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	14 August 1998, 6 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 11 months
	h.	Total Service:	4 years, 2 months, 5 days
	i.	Time Lost:	691days
	j.	Previous Discharges:	RA (960509-980813) / HD
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	63S (Heavy Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic)
	m.	GT Score:	NIF
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	None
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	ASR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	None
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 May 1996 for a period of 3 years and reenlisted for 6 years on 14 August 1998.  He was 21 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  His record shows no valor or achievement awards.  He completed 4 years, 2 months, and 5 days of creditable active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 12 April 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-5, AR 635-200, by reason of conviction by civilian court for committing assault with a dangerous weapon.

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

3.  On 17 April 2002, 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 26 April 2002, 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 14 June 2002, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, Section II, AR 635-200, for misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKB and a Re-Entry (RE) code of 3. 

6.  The applicant's record shows he was confined by civil authorities during the period 23 July 2000 through 13 June 2002.  It shows further that he continued being confined after his conviction by a civilian court.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

A civil confinement inmate data, dated 20 September 2001, with civil court documents.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant did not provide additional evidence. 

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, 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 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 civil court conviction.

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 the discharge was improper because he was on leave when he was apprehended and confined by civil authorities while he was on leave from his unit, and he was not given a chance to defend himself when his discharge was completed.  However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discriminated.  In fact, the applicant’s civil court conviction and confinement justify incidents of serious misconduct.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.  
5.  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.  

6.  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:  17 May 2013       Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

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:		No Change
Change RE Code to:			No Change
Grade Restoration to:			NA
Other:						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)		AR20130000165



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1