IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	21 June 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130001354
___________________________________________________________________________

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 to upgrade his characterization of service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable, and to change the narrative reason for his discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that during the period of his discharge, he was struggling with a lot of issues that were undiagnosed for quite some time.  He was admitted in July 2011 to a civilian hospital for four days.  He was also admitted in August 2011 to another hospital for 12 days.  During hospitalization, he was diagnosed with a mood disorder.  He was subsequently treated for major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder NOS, which the Department of Veteran Affairs acknowledges as service-related.  He did not realize that his erratic behavior was directly related to the disorders until he underwent treatment.  He is now in treatment for these conditions.  He has been working full time as an assistant warehouse supervisor for over a year and in school part time.  He is doing what he can to contribute appropriately to society even with his mental health struggles.  He sincerely believes his behavior was related to untreated mental health disorders, and is hopeful that his DD-214 would reflect his honorable service.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	22 January 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	10 November 2011
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b
			JKA, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	D Company, 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 
			Fort Campbell, KY
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	16 February 2008, 5 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 8 months, 25 days
	h.	Total Service:	5 years, 3 months, 13 days
	i.	Time Lost:	31 days
	j.	Previous Discharges:	RA (060627-080215)/HD
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-5
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	92Y20, Unit Supply Specialist
	m.	GT Score:	118
	n.	Education:	GED at enlistment/36 college semester hours in 
			June 2010 
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA
	p.	Combat Service:	Iraq (070201-080329), Afghanistan (100504-110323)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	ARCOM-2; AAM; NDSM; ACM-2CS; ICM-CS; ASR 
			OSR-2; NATO MDL 
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	Yes
	t.	Counseling Statements:	Yes
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No



SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		

The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army on 16 February 2008 for a period of 5 years, subsequent to his enlistment on 27 June 2006.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED) at his initial enlistment.  He has since completed approximately 36 college semester hours in June 2010.  He served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He earned two ARCOMs and an AAM.  He completed 5 years, 3 months, and 13 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 28 September 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.  Specifically, for the following offenses:  

a. failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (110821)
b. being absent from duty (110824)
c. disobeying an NCO x 2 (110824, 110826)
d. being disrespectful in language toward an NCO (110826)

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

3.  On 28 September 2011, the applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and he 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.  On 9 October 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 discharged from the Army on 10 November 2011, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and a RE code of 3. 

6.  The applicant’s record contains three periods of lost time: two separate occasions for being AWOL for a total of 5 days, and for being confined in a military confinement facility for 26 days, a total of 31 days of lost time.  





EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 2 August 2011, disrespectful in language toward an NCO (110701).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-4, 30 days of extra duty and restriction (15 days of restriction was suspended), (FG). 

2.  Article 15, dated 23 August 2011, disrespectful in language toward an NCO (110804); disobeyed a lawful order from an NCO x 3, and a Senior NCO (110804).  The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $733 x 2 months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction, (FG).

3.  Summary Court-Martial Record of Trial reflects that on 9 September 2011, the applicant was found guilty of Charge I, Article 86, UCMJ, specifications 1 and 2, failed to go to his appointed place of duty (110821, 110824), and Charge II, Article 91, UCMJ, disobeyed a lawful order from an NCO (110824).  A sentence of confinement for 30 days and forfeiture of $733 was adjudged.

4.  Twenty-two negative counseling statements, dated between 4 May 2011 through 13 September 2011, for disrespecting an NCO, failing APFT, exceeding body fat standards, disrespecting an NCO, domestic disturbance, domestic issues, domestic assault, barracks restriction, showing up late for work, barracks restriction, missing formations, failure to report, disrespecting and being insubordinate to a senior NCO, disobeying a commissioned officer, mental status evaluation, improper uniform, incurred debts, and separation action. 

5.  One NCOER covering the period 1 May 2011 to 5 August 2008, rendered as “Relief for Cause.”  The applicant was rated as “Marginal” and received 5/5 from the senior rater.

6.  Note that the applicant’s AMHRR reflects a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand filed; however, there is none and instead, there is an Article 15, dated 2 August 2011, filed with its attachments.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided (Exhibit B), DD Form 214 with orders for service under current review; (Exhibit C), NCOER; (Exhibit D), separation packet; medical records with 18 July 2011 hospitalization labeled as Exhibit E and 7 September 2011 hospitalization labeled as Exhibit G; VA decision documents, dated 16 August 2012; and VA rating decision document, dated 24 July 2012.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, that he is in treatment for his medical condition, working full time, and in school part time.




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.

4.  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.  It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge and a change to the narrative reason for 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 or a change to the narrative reason for his 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 a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by two Article 15 punishments for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; a summary court-martial, also for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; and numerous negative counseling statements.

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

4.  The applicant contends that medical issues contributed to his discharge from the Army.  However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention.  His record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication.  In fact, a DD Form 2808, Report of Medical Examination dated 9 September 2011, determined that although the applicant was suffering from an adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions, ultimately found him qualified for service.  Furthermore, the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing.  The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels.

5.  The applicant further contends that he hopes his DD Form 214 would reflect his honorable service.  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 warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements, and the documented punishments administered by Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on two separate occasions and by a summary court-martial.

6.  The applicant also contends that since leaving the Army he has been employed full time, attending school part time, and receiving treatment for his medical condition.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.    

7.  In view of the above, 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.  Accordingly, the records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

8.  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:  21 June 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 Authority for Separation:		No Change
Change RE Code to:			No Change
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)		AR20130001354



Page 2 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1