IN THE CASE OF: Mr.
BOARD DATE: 29 May 2013
CASE NUMBER: AR20130001150
___________________________________________________________________________
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 APPLICANTS 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, he was discharged with a good record with no Article 15 punishment. Although he was charged in a civilian court system, he was told that if he did not get into any further trouble, the charges would be dismissed; however, he was already charged by the Army. He was also promoted above his peers and graduated from the warrior leaders course (WLC) in the top 20 percent of his class. He does not believe he was provided the opportunity to correct his mistake before he was discharged. He was not given any extra duty or corrective training, which he feels he deserved given his prior track record.
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:
a. Application Receipt Date: 14 January 2013
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Condition
c. Date of Discharge: 25 August 2011
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Civil Conviction), AR 635-200, Chapter
14, Section II, JKB, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: B Co, 203rd BSB, 3HBCT, 3ID, Fort Benning, GA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 3 June 2010, 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 2 months, 22 days
h. Total Service: 4 years, 1 month, 8 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: RA (070718-100602) / HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 94F (Computer detection Systems Repairer)
m. GT Score: 101
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: SWA
p. Combat Service: Iraq (080915-090914)
q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM; NDSM; ICM-CS; GWOTSM; NPDR; 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 18 July 2007 and reenlisted on 3 June 2010 for a period of 3 years. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Iraq. He earned an ARCOM and completed 4 years, 1 month, and 8 days of active duty service.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. The evidence contained in the applicants service record shows that on 18 July 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-5, AR 635-200, by reason of conviction by a civil court and receiving a sentence of one year confinement that was further suspended for two years on formal probation.
2. The unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.
3. On 19 July 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions and submitted a statement on his behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The senior intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
4. The separation authoritys decision memorandum that reflects having approved the conditional waiver request, waived further rehabilitation and directing the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions is not available. However, the DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, Section II, by reason of misconduct (civil conviction), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 25 August 2011, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-5, AR 635-200, for misconduct (civil conviction), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKB and an RE code of 3.
6. The applicants service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:
1. Two negative counseling statements, dated 22 June 2011 and 22 August 2011, for losing ID card and initiation of involuntary separation.
2. A case action summary by a state unified judicial system, dated 13 June 2011, reflecting the actions, judgments, and case notes in the applicants case for being charged with a marijuana-2nd degree offense
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:
The applicant provided a copy of his promotion packet and two certificates of completing trainings.
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 members 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 Soldiers separation specifically allows such characterization.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicants 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 the applicants 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. The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge. The applicants record of service was marred by the civil court conviction.
3. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicants service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.
4. The applicant contends that he had good service which included being considered for promotion above his peers and having completed the WLC in the upper 20 percent of the class. The applicants service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the serious incidents of misconduct and as documented actions by a civil court conviction.
5. The applicant contends he was not provided the opportunity for corrective training. However, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose. The command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service.
6. 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 applicants discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. Accordingly, 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: 29 May 2013 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify? NA
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) AR20130001150
Page 6 of 6 pages
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)
CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE
1
ARMY | DRB | CY2014 | AR20140003197
Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 March 2006, for a period of 3 years and 16 weeks. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. AR 635-200, Chapter 2, paragraph 2-2 states, the separation authority is not bound by the...
ARMY | DRB | CY2014 | AR20140002713
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable, a change to the reentry code and to the narrative reason for the discharge. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 15 March 2011, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, Section II, paragraph 14-5, AR 635-200, for misconduct (civil conviction), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKB and an RE...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130002130
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. He believes he was improperly discharged because he requested to be present at his discharge proceedings but again it was denied by his chain of command. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a self-authored statement with his application.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130006760
IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 13 November 2013 CASE NUMBER: AR20130006760 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130009340
On 6 April 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 4 May 2001, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-5, AR 635-200, for misconduct (civil conviction), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKB and an RE code of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130008694
IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 22 January 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20130008694 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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. The applicants available record does not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110020579
Applicant Name: ????? If they hadn't discharged me, why didn't they look for me? Time Lost: AWOL x 1 (060725-101215) for 1,604 days.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130014389
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 evidence contained in the applicants service record shows that on 7 December 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct for the following offenses: a. being AWOL on divers...
ARMY | DRB | CY2014 | AR20140001076
On 8 December 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon his receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions. The board recommended the applicants discharge with characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. On 24 March 2011, the separation authority approved the separation and directed the applicants...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130012322
IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 25 April 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20130012322 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The...