IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	5 June 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130001790
___________________________________________________________________________

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.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he believes his character of service is unfair, because he served his first three years and three months term of duty honorably and without incident.  He was a recipient of the Army Good Conduct Metal.  He also served 13 months in Iraq as a front line Infantry Soldier without incident.  His first semester of college, he maintained an above average GPA.  He needs an upgrade to complete his education and become a more productive citizen.  In addition, he is retaining custody of his infant daughter and the upgrade will help him take care of her while he is completing his education in college.  He has not been in any trouble since leaving the military.  He has learned many valuable lessons from his time in the military, which is helping him to stay on task and punctual with his education. 
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	14 January 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	9 November 2011
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-
			12b, JKA, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	B Co, 2nd Bn, 69th Armor Regiment, 3rd Heavy 
			Brigade Combat Team, 3rd ID, Fort Benning, GA
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	18 March 2011, 4 years (NIF, but according to ERB)
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	7 months, 22 days 
	h.	Total Service:	3 years, 5 months, 25 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	RA (080515-110317) / HD
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-3
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	11B (Infantryman)
	m.	GT Score:	99
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA
	p.	Combat Service:	Iraq (091015-101015)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	ARCOM; AGCM; NDSM; ICM-CS; GWOTSM; 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 15 May 2008 for a period of 3 years and 17 weeks.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Iraq.  He earned an ARCOM and completed 3 years, 5 months, and 25 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 12 October 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 failing to report to his appointed place of duty on divers occasion (110502-110823).

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

3.  On 18 October 2011, the applicant consulted 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 applicant’s record is void of the separation authority’s memorandum waiving further rehabilitation and directing the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature.

5.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 9 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 service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  Although, the unit commander provided information that the applicant received a sentence of a 15-day confinement, there is no record available.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 22 July 2011, failure to report on 3 occasions (110629, 110619, and 110502).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $733 (suspended), 30 days of extra duty, (FG). 

2.  Nine negative counseling statements dated between 2 May 2011 and 7 September 2011, for showing up to work late, missing formations, disobeying orders, fighting with other Soldiers, and assault. 

3.  Unit Commander’s forwarding memorandum indicates a summary court-martial conviction on 28 September 2011, which states the applicant was sentenced to 15 days confinement. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

 The applicant did not provide any additional evidence.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, that he is currently attending college and maintaining an above average GPA. 

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 the applicant’s record of service, his military records, 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 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 an Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and multiple negative counseling statements.

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 that his first term service was without incident and had received the AGCM.  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 action under an Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

5.  The applicant further contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill.  However, 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.

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 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.  

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:  5 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)		AR20130001790



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1