IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	28 June 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130003142
___________________________________________________________________________

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 fully honorable.

2.  The applicant did not provide any issues of equity or propriety for the Board’s consideration.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		11 February 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:			18 October 2011
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, 						JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			62d Engineer Co, Fort Carson, CO
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	15 January 2009, 3 years, 16 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 9 months, 4 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 9 months, 4 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	12B10, Combat Engineer
m. GT Score:				88
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			SWA
p. Combat Service:			Afghanistan (090729-100216)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-2, GWOTSM, ASR, CAB
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		Yes
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes	
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 January 2009, for a period of 3 years and 16 weeks.  He was 22 years old at the time and a high school graduate.   The applicant’s record shows he served in Afghanistan between July 2009 and February 2010.  His awards include an ARCOM, and a CAB.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Carson, CO.




SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The record shows that on 1 October 2011, 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 failing to report to his designated place of duty on 14 different occasions between 8 May 2010 and 22 June 2011.

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 22 September 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived his right to appear before an administration board (was not entitled to such a board), 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.  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 18 October 2011, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 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 28 July 2011, a Company Grade Article 15 for failing to report twice (110622), disobeying a lawful order from an NCO (110620).  His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $383.00, 14 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand.
      
     b. On 22 February 2011, a Company Grade Article for failing to report 4 times (110209, 110131, 110130, 110128).  His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $429.00, 14 days of extra duty and restriction and an oral reprimand.
      
     c. On 17 August 2010, a Company Grade Article 15 for failing to report (100601), disobeying a lawful order from an NCO (100730).  His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2 (suspended), forfeiture of pay in the amount of $378.00 (suspended), 14 days of extra duty and an oral reprimand.
      
2.  Seventeen negative counseling statements dated between 2 June 2010 and 26 July 2011, for offenses related to AWOL, multiple failures to report, failure to provide spousal support, failure to follow orders, lying to an NCO, disobeying lawful orders, and separation counseling.

3.  Academic Evaluation Report dated 2 February 2011 that indicates the applicant was dismissed from the Warrior Leaders Course for hardship.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

None were provided with the application

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.

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 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 numerous and 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 3 Articles 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and 17 negative counseling statements.

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.  The applicant did not provide any issues of equity or propriety to be considered by the Board either.  

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

5.  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:  28 June 2013	Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

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:		No
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	UOTH - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions
ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR 20130003142

Page 5 of 5 pages



ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1