IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	29 July 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130002532
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony 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 to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for his separation.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, while he attended the Veterinarian Food Inspection Course (91R) at Fort Sam Houston in 1999, he witnessed a friend/Soldier get killed.  The incident occurred on post while the victim was driving.  The assailant’s weapon accidentally discharged and struck the victim in the head from the back seat.  The applicant contends that he was covered in blood and brain tissue.  After the incident, the Army never offered him any kind of psychological help but instead treated him as a suspect.  Later, he was cleared of all wrong doing and sent to Germany in 2000.  He started to feel guilty and started blaming himself for allowing the incident to happen.  He turned to alcohol which led to numerous bar fights and a couple of Article 15s.  After two failed relationships, losing his career and 13 years later, he is finally admitting that he needs help.  He is currently going to the Veterans Administration (VA) seeking help.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		24 January 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:			5 June 2002
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, 						JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			72nd Medical Detachment, APO AE 09182
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	29 March 1999, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 2 months, 8 days
h. Total Service:			5 years, 2 months, 5 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (970401-990328), HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	91R10, Veterinarian Food Inspection Specialist
m. GT Score:				117
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes	
u. Prior Board Review:			Yes, 2 July 2003, denied





SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 April 1997 for a period of 
2 years and 27 weeks and was a high school graduate.  He reenlisted on 29 March 1999 for a period of 4 years.  He was 21 years old at the time of his reenlistment.  The applicant’s record does not show any significant achievements or acts of valor.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Giebelstadt, GE.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  On 6 May 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of pattern of misconduct; specifically for:

a.  receiving a Company Grade (CG) Article 15 for an assault (001114).
b.  receiving a CG Article 15 for reckless driving (010402).
c.  receiving a Field Grade (FG) Article 15 for drinking and driving (010904). 
d.  committing another assault (020225). 

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

3.  On 6 May 2002, the applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit 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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 22 May 2002, 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 separated on 5 June 2002, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b for a Pattern of Misconduct, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA and an RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant’s record does not show any time lost.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  The applicant's disciplinary record includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), as follows:

	a.  On 14 November 2000, for committing an assault (000704).  His punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, suspended, 7 days of extra duty and restriction (CG).

	b.  On 2 April 2001, for reckless driving (010121).  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of pay in the amount of $200.00 (CG).

	c.  On 30 August 2001, for DUI (010610).  His punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $500.00, 30 days of restriction and 15 days extra duty (FG).

2.  A Military Police Report, dated 25 February 2012, for committing assault (020127).

3.  There is one counseling statement, dated 2 April 2002, referring the applicant to mental health.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

An online DD Form 293, a self-authored statement, a DD Form 214, and a memorandum from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining his military records and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient 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 repeated incidents of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s service was marred by three Articles 15 for multiple violations 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 his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

4.  The applicant submitted documents showing the VA has granted him a service connected disability for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  However, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  

5.  The applicant contends he was not given any help from his leadership.  However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.  Further, AR 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self-referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance.

6.  In addition, the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. 

7.  Lastly, 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.  

8.  Records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.

9.  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:  Personal Appearance      Date:  29 July 2013	Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  NA

DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE:

The applicant submitted no additional documents or contentions.

In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing.

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:		NA
Grade Restoration to:		NA
Change Authority for Separation:	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)		AR20130002532



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1