IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	10 July 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130002167
___________________________________________________________________________

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.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he believes that his discharge is not accurate.  He served the entirety of his first enlistment honorably.  It wasn’t until after he returned from Afghanistan that he developed a drinking problem.  During that time none of his superiors ever tried to help, nor seek help for him.  It wasn’t until his second Article 15 that they realized he had issues with alcohol.  Instead of trying to get him help, they decided to discharge him from the military which he does not believe was appropriate for a combat veteran.  Over the last year, he realized this and is getting help from the Veterans Center in Sacramento CA.  He is going through therapy for his issues which include PTSD and substance abuse.  He has been a model citizen since his discharge and believes he deserves an upgrade.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		28 January 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			9 December 2010
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, 14-12C 						JKQ, RE-3        
e. Unit of assignment:			G Company, 54th Engineer Battalion(Provisional) 						APO AE 
f. Enlistment Date/Term:		27 April 2010, 3 years 
g. Current Enlistment Service:	0 years, 7 months, 13 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 1 month, 15 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (071025-100426), HD 
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4	
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	12B10, Combat Engineer
m. GT Score:				132
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			SWA and Romania
p. Combat Service:			Afghanistan (090202-090830)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-w/CS, GWOTEM, GWOTSM						ASR, VUA
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 25 October 2007 for a period of 4 years and 18 weeks.  He reenlisted on 27 April 2010 for 3 years.  He was 32 years old at the time he reenlisted and was a high school graduate.  At the time his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Bamberg, Germany.  His record documents the award of an ARCOM.    

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The record shows that on 9 September 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct-commission of a serious offense, specifically for:

	a.  fleeing the scene of an accident (100212)
	b.  making a false official statement to a noncommissioned officer (100329)
	c.  physically controlling a passenger car while drunk (100530)
	d.  being drunk while on duty (100723)

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.  

3.  On 10 September 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and submitted a statement on his 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 of the proposed discharge.  

4.  On 28 September 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions; however, he suspended the discharge for 12 months.

5.  On 18 November 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of the recommendation to vacate the suspension of the discharge because the applicant failed to obey a lawful order from a commissioned officer on 8 October 2010.

6.  On 19 November 2010, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the vacation of suspension and elected not to consult with legal counsel or submit a statement on his behalf.

7.  On 30 November 2010, the separation authority approved the recommendation to vacate the suspension and directed the applicant be discharged immediately with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

8.  The applicant was discharged on 9 December 2010, for misconduct (serious offense), under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with an SPD code of JKQ and a RE code of 3.

9.  The service record does not contain any evidence of lost time.  



EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  The record contains a Military Police Report, dated 12 February 2010 for fleeing the scene of a traffic accident, reckless driving, failing to report involvement in a traffic accident, having a traffic accident with damage to private property and making a false official statement.

2.  The record contains a GOMOR, dated 11 June 2010 for driving under the influence of alcohol.  

3.  A Field Grade Article 15, dated 12 July 2010, for making a false official statement with intent to deceive (100329), driving under the influence of alcohol (100212), and fleeing the scene of an accident (100212).  The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $723.00 pay per month for 2 months, and 45 days restriction and extra duty. 

4.  A Military Police Report, dated 13 July 2010, for being drunk on duty.  

5.  A Field Grade Article 15, dated 23 August 2010, for being found drunk on duty (100723).    The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $723.00 pay per month for 2 Months, and 45 days restriction and extra duty. 

6.  A MEDCOM Form 4038 (Mental Status Examination), dated 31 August 2010.  The applicant was diagnosed with having alcohol dependency.  

7.  A memorandum, dated 21 September 2010, from Social Work Services stating the applicant had been in treatment with Behavioral Health since 28 July 2010.  He self-referred.  and had a total of six sessions.  He has made all scheduled appointments, was on time, and actively participated in the sessions.  The therapist stated that with continued treatment, the applicant would be an effective Soldier.  

8.  A Field Grade Article 15, dated 12 November 2010, for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer by having a visitor in the barracks without an overnight pass (101009).  The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $723.00 pay per month for 2 months, and 45 days restriction and extra duty. 

9.  Four negative counseling statements covering the period 1 June 2010 through 20 August 2010 for being drunk on duty, driving under the influence of alcohol, disrespecting an NCO, disobeying an order from a commissioned officer, having a pattern of misconduct, and self- referral to mental health.   

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

A DD Form 293 and a DD Form 214

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant contends he is going through therapy for PTSD and substance abuse. 

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 service record, 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 service record confirms 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 serious misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by three Articles 15 for multiple violations of the UCMJ.

3.  The applicant contends that he believes the characterization of his discharge is not accurate because he served the entirety of his first enlistment honorably.  He did not have problems until he returned from Afghanistan.  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

4.  The applicant contends he did not receive any help from his chain of command for his issues.  Instead of trying to get him help, they decided to discharge him from the military which he does not believe was appropriate for a combat veteran.  A review of the applicant’s record shows he self-referred to mental health, but it is not clear whether he self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance.    

5.  The applicant contends he is getting help from the Veterans Center in Sacramento CA and is going through therapy for his issues which include PTSD and substance abuse.  However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  The record shows that on 31 August 2010, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong.  The mental status evaluation indicated he knew the difference between what was right and wrong.  

6.  By regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of serious misconduct.  It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge.  His record was marred by three Articles 15 for multiple violations of the UCMJ.

7.  Furthermore, the separation authority suspended the discharge action for a period of 12 months in order for the applicant to demonstrate a solid performance. However, less than two weeks after the suspended discharge, the applicant’s further misconduct resulted in vacation of that suspension and his immediate discharge.

8.  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, and 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 July 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 RE Code to:			No Change
Grade Restoration to:			NA	
Change Authority for Separation:		No Change
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)		AR20130002167



Page 2 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1