IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	2 August 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130001101
___________________________________________________________________________

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 characterization from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was faced with numerous issues and problems after his deployment.  He was a good Soldier until he found out his wife was committing adultery with which resulted in a very stressful divorce.  In addition, the previous leadership left the unit and the friction and tension from the new leaders impacted the entire unit.  He was overwhelmed with all of the events in which resulted in him receiving mental health counseling.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		11 January 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:			2 December 2011
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b 						JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			B Company, 203rd Brigade Support Battalion, 3rd 						Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division 						Fort Benning, GA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	Reenlisted/18 March 2010, 6 years/reenlistment 
      contract NIF/See enlisted record brief (ERB)
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 8 months, 14 days
h. Total Service:			4 years, 5 months, 15 days, 
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA 070618-100317/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	94E10, radio and COMSEC Repairer			
m. GT Score:				106
n. Education:				GED
o. Overseas Service:			SWA
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (091006-100916)
q. Decorations/Awards:		AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-w/CS-2, GWOTSM 						KDSM, ASR, OSR-2
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes	
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 June 2007 for a period of 4 years.  He was 17 years old at the time and had a high school equivalency (GED).  He reenlisted and the applicant’s record shows he served in Iraq and earned three AAMs and an AGCM.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Benning, GA.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  On 29 October 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of pattern of misconduct; specifically for:

a.  disobeying a lawful order on divers occasions
b.  committing adultery between April 2011 and September 2011
c.  failing to report on divers occasions
d.  being disrespectful to NCOs on divers occasions  

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and informed the applicant of his rights.

3.  On 4 November 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on his 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 of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 15 November 2011, 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 separated on 2 December 2011, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b for a Pattern of Misconduct, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA and an RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant’s record does not show any time lost.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  The applicant's disciplinary record includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), as follows:

a.  On 4 August 2011, for failing to go to at the prescribed time to his place of duty three times (110504, 110713, and 110720) and was disrespectful in language towards a NCO.  His punishment consisted of reduction to E-3 and 14 days of extra duty. (CG).

b.  On 20 October 2011, for disobeying a lawful order from a NCO (110901) and committing adultery (between 1104 and 1109).  His punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $822.00, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG).

2.  There are several negative counseling statements covering the period 17 August 2011 and 26 October 2011, for disobeying lawful orders, failing to report, and being disrespectful toward NCOs.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

A DD Form 293; DD Form 214; a self-authored letter, nine pages; medical documents, 17 pages; and three character reference letters.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant contends he is working and going to school.

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 and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient 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 repeated incidents of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s service was marred by two Articles 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and several negative counseling statements.

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 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.  

5.  The applicant contends that tension from the new leaders impacted the entire unit.  He was overwhelmed with the new leadership style.  However, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from stress through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.  

6.  The applicant has expressed his desire to have a better chance at job opportunities and the benefits of using the GI Bill.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Further, 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.

7.  In addition, 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.  

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

9.  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: 	2 August 2013	Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

Counsel: None

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 RE Code to:			No Change
Grade Restoration to:			NA
Change Authority for Separation:		No Change
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)		AR20130001101



Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1