IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	15 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130000224
___________________________________________________________________________

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, that he is trying to obtain state employment as he is older and wiser than he was in 2008-2009.  His ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity.  He enlisted with intentions to continue the military history of his father who served honorably in the Air Force.  However, after performing well in basic training, he saw a different side of military life at his first duty station.  He found he was unable to talk about his feelings and issues without being belittled.  He became withdrawn and did not express himself very well.  He made a false statement to cause attention to his problem which would allow him to be discharged.  He knows now that it was the wrong thing to do.  He had also requested to change his MOS from infantry, but was told he could not make the change—he did not fit well in the infantry field as he is a Christian.  The offense he committed was the only offense.  He has not been involved in any legal issues since his discharge from the Army.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	17 December 2012
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	25 February 2009
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 
			Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	B Company, 1st Battalion, 36th Infantry Regiment 
			1st BCT, 1st AD, Fort Bliss, TX
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	28 February 2008 / 3 years, 16 weeks
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	11 months, 28 days
	h.	Total Service:	11 months, 28 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-2
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	11B10, Infantryman
	m.	GT Score:	105
	n.	Education:	GED
	o.	Overseas Service:	None
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	No
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No




SUMMARY OF SERVICE: 

The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 February 2008, for a period of 3 years and 16 weeks.  He was 21years old and had a high school equivalency (GED).  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Infantryman.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 4 February 2009, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct (serious offense).  Specifically for the following offenses:  

a. making a false official statement, and
b. conspiring to falsely receive payment from an insurance company.

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

3.  On 4 February 2009, the applicant waived the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, indicated he understood 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 18 February 2009, 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 25 February 2009, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and a 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:

1.  Article 15, dated 9 December 2008, making a false official statement, conspiring with two Soldiers to commit an offense (080912), attempting to commit larceny (080912).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, 8 days of extra duty and restriction (CG).
2.  A CID Report, dated 12 November 2008, that reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for larceny of private property, solicitation, false official statement, and conspiracy.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided DD Form 214 for service under current review; County Veterans Service Center transmittal letter; two character reference letters.

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 serious incidents, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15 for multiple violations of 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 that he had issues with adjusting to military life, in that he did not fit well in his infantry MOS because he was a Christian, and not being able to express his feeling and issues led him to commit an offense which ultimately caused him to be discharged.  However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance of relief, such as the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers.  There is no evidence in the record that he sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. 

5.  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.

6.  The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment or state employment.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

7.  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.  

8.  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:  15 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)		AR20130000224



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1