IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 
      
      BOARD DATE:  	15 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130000736
___________________________________________________________________________

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 he was discharged due to a single isolated incident in over three years of service.  He is requesting an upgrade so he can utilize his education benefits and further his education.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		10 January 2013		
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			17 April 2012	
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	 Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Para 14-12b, 							JKA, RE-3	
e. Unit of assignment:			HHC, 296th Brigade Support Battalion (R) (P),        						Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington			
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	7 May 2010, 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 10 months, 2 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 7 months, 13 days
i. Time Lost:				28 days, AWOL
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (080807 – 100506), HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic
m. GT Score:				105
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			SWA
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (090803 - 100723)
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 August 2008 and reenlisted on 7 May 2010 for a period of 3 years.  He was 21 years old at the time and a high school graduate.  He served in Iraq and completed a total of 3 years, 7 months, and 13 days of creditable active duty service.



SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 27 March 2012, the commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, Patterns of Misconduct for going AWOL from 13 July 2011 until 11 August 2011 and failing to report.

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

3.  On 28 March 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in 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 29 March 2012, the separation authority reviewed and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 17 April 2012, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA, and an RE code of 3.               

6.  The applicant's record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) during the period        13 July 2011 through 11 August 2011.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  An Article 15, dated 28 September 2011, without authority absented himself from his unit (110713 - 110811).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $733 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction, (FG). 

2.  An undated negative counseling statement for being late for extra duty.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

 The applicant provided a DD Form 293 and a DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were provided by the applicant.






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 an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15 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 that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill.  However, 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.

5.  The applicant contends the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his entire Army career.  Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  

6.  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:  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:	NA
Change RE Code to:		NA
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)		AR20130000736



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1