IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	8 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130000187
___________________________________________________________________________

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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge exceeds the punitive actions already incurred.  A general, under honorable conditions discharge does not accurately reflect his service.  Additionally, the stigma of such a discharge has the potential to greatly and unfairly affect his future.  He believes it negates his advancement potential professionally, publicly, and civically, as well as unfairly diminishes the honor with which he served.  He is an associate adjunct and a graduate student.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		21 December 2012			
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			10 March 2000	
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	 Pattern of Misconduct, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3	
e. Unit of assignment:			A Company, 2d Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry 						Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC	
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	26 February 1998, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 0 months, 10 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 0 months, 10 days
i. Time Lost:				5 days
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	11B1P, Infantryman
m. GT Score:				126
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:		No
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 February 1998, for a period of 4 years.            He was 22 years old at the time of entry, a high school graduate and completed 2 years,          0 months, and 10 days of active duty service.


SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, for Pattern of Misconduct. Specifically for:

	a.  Field Grade Article 15 for AWOL
	b.  Company Grade Article 15 for disrespect to a superior noncommissioned officer
	
2.  Based on the above, the commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 17 February 2000, the applicant waived his right to consult 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 3 March 2000, the separation authority approved and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 10 March 2000, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA, and a   RE code of 3. 

6.  The applicant's record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) for 5 days during the period 1 October 1999 through 5 October 1999.  He surrendered and returned to military control.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 29 November 1999, without authority absented himself from his unit (991001 - 991006).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $479 per month for two months (suspended) to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (000124), 45 days of extra duty and restriction, (suspended) to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (000124), (FG). 

2.  The separation files indicate the applicant received an Article 15, dated 21 July 1999, for disrespecting a senior noncommissioned officer.  The punishment consisted of reduction to    E-2, forfeiture of $231 (suspended), extra duty for 15 days (CG).  The Article 15 is NIF.
      
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

 The applicant provided a DD Form 293 with a self-authored statement, and a DD Form 214. 


POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, he is an Associate Adjunct and a Graduate student.  

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 of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by 2 Article 15’s for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


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, he is an associate adjunct and a graduate student.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge.  However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings.  The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

5.  The applicant contends that his discharge exceeds the punitive actions he had already incurred.  A general, under honorable conditions discharge does not accurately reflect his service.  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.   In review of the applicant’s available military record, the character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record.   

6.  The applicant contends the stigma of such a discharge has the potential to greatly and unfairly affect his future.  He believes it negates his advancement potential professionally, publicly, and civically, as well as unfairly diminishes the honor with which he served.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  

7.  The applicant contends that he was young and immature at the time of the discharge.  The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

8.  The applicant contends that he was having family 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.  

9.  The applicant raised the issue of not receiving help from his chain of command; however, 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.  

10.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

11.  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:   8 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)		AR20130000187



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1