IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	1 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130000907
___________________________________________________________________________

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, that he was unjustly discharged.  He requests his discharge be upgraded due to a miscarriage of justice.  He contends he served honorably with all intentions of retiring, which was cut short.  After Desert Shield / Desert Storm, he was sent home due to a medical emergency and was under a medical situation that carried over to his deployment back to the United States.  With no help from his unit, he was drawn into a situation that required civilians to help him regain control of his life. Unfortunately he did not receive proper help and was drawn into doing things that were not in line with his current beliefs or conducive to a Soldier serving in the military.  His chain of command was not in place to assist him with his problems.  His first line leaders were not in place nor equipped at the present time, nor made any efforts to help him adjust to his problems or his unit.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		31 December 2012
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:			6 July 1999
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ
   RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			USA Combined Arms Support, Fort Bliss, TX
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	7 July 1994, 5 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	5 years, 0 months, 0 days 
h. Total Service:			14 years, 10 months, 29 days
i. Lost time:				None	
j. Previous Discharges:		RA 840808-880501/HD
RA-880502-890803/HD
RA-890804-940706/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-6	
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	14T3P, Patriot Missile Crewmember
m. GT Score:				121
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Korea, Germany, SWA
p. Combat Service:			Saudi (901215-910504)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM-3, NDSM, SWASM-w3BSS 						NPDR-2, ASR, OSR-3, KLM (K), KLM (SA)
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	Yes
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes	
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 August 1984 for a period of 4 years.  He reenlisted for 4 and 6 years.  On 7 July 1994, he reenlisted for 5 years.  He was 31 years old at the time of reenlistment.  He served for a total of 14 years, 10 months, and 29 days of active service.  His service record reflects he achieved the rank of SSG/E-6, and earned an ARCOM, two AAMs, and three AGCMs.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 12 June 1999, 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 falsifying a Major General's signature on his QMP appeal (990212).

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

3.  On 14 June 1999, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.  The applicant 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.  The separation authority directed the applicant be referred to an administrative separation board to determine whether he should be discharged prior to expiration of his term of service, and if so, to recommend a characterization of service.

5.  On 16 June 1999, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board, scheduled for 30 June 1999, and advised of his rights.  

6.  On 23 June 1999, the applicant requested a delay in the administrative separation board scheduled for 30 June 1999.  He had recently undergone surgery that prevented him from actively participating in his defense and could jeopardize his appearance before the board.  

7.  On 30 June 1999, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant did not appear with counsel due to his recovering from surgery.  The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

8.  The separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.


9.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 6 July 1999, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and a RE code of 3. 

10.  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 2 April 1997, for wrongful use of marijuana on divers occasions between (970117 and 970217).  The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $943.00 pay per month for two months; and extra duty for 45 days (suspended) (CG).

2.  A CID Report dated 25 May 1999, that indicates that the applicant was the subject of an investigation for falsifying an official statement.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a copy of a Chronological Record of Medical Care report in addition to his application.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states since being separated from the military he has become a business entrepreneur and CEO.  He deals with the public sector and the military daily.  His life was dedicated to military service, and since being released from active duty he has been dealing with many Soldiers in the public sector with respect to all. 
 
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 military records, the documents and issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  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 incidents of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge.  His service was marred by an Article 15 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the act of falsifying an official document.

3.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

4.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his characterization to honorable and contends that he was unjustly discharged.  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 discharged.  The applicant’s statement alone does 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.  Furthermore, 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.  

6.  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: 1 May 2013        Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  N/A 

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: N/A 

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)		AR20130000907



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1