IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	12 July 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130003324
___________________________________________________________________________

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 from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his three prior periods of service be taken into consideration to include his combat duty.  His discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during 15 years of service.  His new commander was unaware of his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and responded to the incidents which occurred.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		15 February 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			4 May 2005
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14 						paragraph14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			L Troop, 3-2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment 							Fort Polk, LA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	5 September 2000, 5 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	4 years, 8 months, 0 days
h. Total Service:			14 years, 4 months, 23 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		the DD Form 214 indicated the applicant served 						2 years, 11 months, 4 days of prior active service; 						however, this service is not document in the record						RA (931116-960725)/HD										RA (960726-970819)/HD										RA (970820-000904)/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-6
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	19D20, Cavalry Scout
m. GT Score:				97
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Southwest Asia/Germany
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (020929-030912)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM-2, AAM-4, AGCM-4, NDSM-2, ICM 							GWOTSM NPDR, ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		Yes
t. Counseling Statements:		No
u. Prior Board Review:			No





SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 November 1993, for a period of 3 years.  His DD 214 reflects a prior period of active service that is not documented in the record.  He was 26 years old at the time and a HS Graduate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 19D20, Cavalry Scout.  His last reenlistment on 5 September 2000 was for a period of 5 years and he was 33 years old at the time.  He achieved the rank of SSG/E-6.  His record also shows he served a combat tour and earned several awards including an ARCOM-2, AAM-4, and AGCM-4.  He was serving at Fort Polk, LA, when his discharge was initiated.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 24 January 2005, 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 a pattern of misconduct for the Family Advocacy Program substantiating two cases of spouse abuse towards his wife and one case of child abuse toward his children. 

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

3.  On 25 January 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation 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 and senior commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

4.  On 16 March 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions and did not submit a statement on his behalf.

5.  On 26 April 2005, the separation authority approved the conditional waiver request, waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

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

7.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 4 May 2005, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA, and a RE code of 3.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  The record contains a Military Police Report (MPR), dated 15 November 2004, which indicated the applicant was under investigation for domestic assault, consummated by battery.

2.  An Article 15, dated 6 January 2003 for being derelict in the performance of his duties, by failing to use his government credit card for Temporary Duty Assignments (TDY) purposes only (020430-020726); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-4 (suspended), forfeiture of $1,241 pay (suspended), extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 45 days, (FG).

3.  The applicant received five successful NCOERs covering the periods of July 2000 through August 2004, which were during the period under review.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293; DD Form 149; DD Form 214; and Discharge Orders 117-0355.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any 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 record, the issues and documents 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 and an MPR.

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 three prior periods of service should be taken into consideration to include his combat duty.  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 overcome the reason for discharge and the characterization of service granted.

5.  The applicant further contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during 15 years of service.  However, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline.  

6.  The applicant also contends his new commander was unaware of his PTSD and he responded to the incidents which occurred.  The service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  

7.  Additionally, 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.  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:  12 July 2013        Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify:  No

Counsel:  NA

Board Vote:
Character Change:  1	No Change:  4
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)		AR20130003324



Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1