IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	10 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130001393
___________________________________________________________________________

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 honorable and a change to the narrative reason for the discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 5 years and 8 months of service with no other adverse actions.  He contends there was no attempt to rehabilitate him after the incident that caused his discharge.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		16 January 2013	
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			27 May 1998	
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, JKQ,							RE-3	
e. Unit of Assignment:			B Co, 82d EN Bn, APO AE
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	26 January 1996, 3 years 
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 4 months, 2 days
h. Total Service:			5 years, 7 months, 28 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (920930-960125), HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	12B10, Combat Engineer
m. GT Score:				115
n. Education:				HS Graduate	
o. Overseas Service:			Germany, Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		AAM-2, NDSM, SWASM-w/BSS, ASR, OSR-2, 							AFSM, KLM-K, NATOMDL
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No	
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		None
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 September 1992.  He was a high school graduate.  On 26 January 1996, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years; he was 22 years old at the time.  The record shows he served in Germany and Bosnia and earned several awards that included two AAM's.  He completed 5 years, 7 months, and 28 days of total active service.


SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 20 May 1998, 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) for wrongfully controlling a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol resulting in several privately owned vehicles being severely damaged.

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

3.  The applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and 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 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 27 May 1998, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3. 

6.  The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. 

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  An MP Report dated 20 April 1998, which indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for drunken driving and a traffic accident (reckless driving).

2.  An Article 15, dated 29 April 1998, for driving while drunk (980409).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $467.00 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG) 

3.  There are no negative counseling's in the record. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided no additional documents with his application.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None provided with the application.
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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, and misconduct.

5.  The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of his characterization of service and a change to his narrative reason for the 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.  

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 misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by his Article 15 for a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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

4.  The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 5 years and 8 months of total service.  Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  

5.  The applicant also contends there was no attempt to rehabilitate him after the incident.  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 or produce a quality Soldier.  

6.  The applicant requested a change to the reason for his discharge.  However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct ,” and the separation code is "JKQ."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.  

7.  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:   10 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:		NA
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)		AR20130001393



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1