IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	5 June 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130001329
___________________________________________________________________________

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, his discharge is improper because his character and length of service far outweighs the incident his separation was based on.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		18 January 2013
b. Discharge received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			22 November 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, Chapter 9,                						AR 635-200, JPD, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:			Engineer Battalion, Combat Applications Group 						(Airborne),Fort Bragg, NC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:  	31 December 2007, 6 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:  	4 years, 10 months, 22 days
h. Total Service:			9 years, 8 months, 5 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA-(030318-071230)/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-6
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	12B30, Combat Engineer
m. GT Score:				127
n. Education:				14 years
o. Overseas Service:			Hawaii/Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:			Iraq x 3 (040518-050211), (071204-080401), 							(100702-110621)
q. Decorations/Awards:		MSM, ARCOM-6, AGCM-2, NDSM, ICM-W/3 CS, 						GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NPDR-2, ASR, OSR-2, CAB, 						MUC-2
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		Yes
t. Counseling Statements:		No
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 March 2003, for a period of 6 years.  He was 23 years old at the time of entry with two years of college.  He reenlisted on 31 December 2007, for a period of 6 years and was 28 years old at the time.  He was initially trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 12B30, Combat Engineer and achieved the rank of SSG/E-6.  His record also shows that he served three combat tours and earned several awards including a MSM, ARCOM-6, AGCM-2 and a CAB.  He was serving at Fort Bragg, NC, when his discharge was initiated.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The memorandum from the unit commander in which he would have declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure after consulting with the Clinical Director and the applicant’s election of rights are not contained in the available record and the presumption of government regularity prevails in the discharge process.  

2.  On 2 March 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, for being an alcohol and drug rehabilitation failure as shown by an alcohol related incident that occurred on 15 January 2012, in which the applicant was cited for driving under the influence (.18 bac), while enrolled in ASAP. 

3.  The unit commander advised the applicant of his rights and recommended his discharge from the Army with a service characterization of general, under honorable conditions and waiver of any rehabilitation measures.  The applicant’s election of rights is not contained in the available record and government regularity prevails in the discharge process.

4.  On 18 July 2012, the separation authority approved the proposed action and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 

5.  The applicant’s record does not show any record of unauthorized absences or lost time or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

6.  The applicant was separated on 22 November 2012, under Army Regulation 
635-200, Chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JPD and a reentry code of 4.  His DD Form 214 shows he was a SSG/E-6 at the time of his discharge.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  There are 6 NCO Evaluation Reports covering the periods of 1 August 2006 through              31 October 2011, the applicant was rated as fully capable, 2/1, successful/superior (1) and among the best, 1/1, superior/superior (5).  The records cross reference shows the applicant received a relief for cause NCOER covering the period 1 November 2011 through 29 June 2012.

2.  The applicant’s record does not contain any counseling statements.

3.  The record contains a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 20 January 2012, for driving while intoxicated, (administrative).

4.  The record contains a Military Police Report, dated 15 January 2012, for speeding on post and driving while impaired.


EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

The applicant provided a DD Form 293; DD Form 214; and six DA Forms 2166-8 (NCO Evaluation Report).  

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any with the application.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY  

1.  Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse.  

2.  A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.  

3.  Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on the applicant’s overall record of service.  However, an honorable discharge is required if limited use information is used in the discharge process.

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 military records, the issue and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The applicant was enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) and was aware of the consequences of any action which would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program.  As a result of the applicant’s actions and after consultation with the drug and alcohol abuse counselor, the command declared the Soldier a rehabilitation failure.  

3.  The evidence of record confirms the fact the applicant was properly counseled and afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome his problems.  The general, under honorable conditions discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.

4.  The applicant contends his discharge is improper because his character and length of service far outweighs the incident his separation was based on.  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 his discharge was improper.  

5.  Further, the applicant’s 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 overcome the reason for discharge and the characterization of service granted.

6.  In view of the foregoing, 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:  5 June 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)		AR20130001329



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1