IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	7 August 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130003349
___________________________________________________________________________

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, his request for an upgrade is because he applied for an upgrade in year 2000, but never received a response.  He is trying to apply for a home loan and use his educational benefits for school.  He is currently serving as a PFC at the WTB in Fort Benning, GA. 
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	14 February 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	2 December 1999
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b, JKA 
			RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	HHC, 317th Engineer, Fort Benning, GA
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	29 January 1998, 3 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 10 months, 4 days
	h.	Total Service:	1 year, 10 months, 4 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-2
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	92G10, Food Service
	m.	GT Score:	94
	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:	NIF
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 January 1998 for a period of 3 years.  He was 21 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92G10, Food Service Specialist.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  He completed 1 year, 10 months, and 4 days of active duty service.



SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates that on 2 December 1999, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, for misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKA and a reentry (RE) code of 3.  

3.  The applicant’s available record does not show any recorded actions under the UCMJ, unauthorized absences or time lost.  However, he was separated as a PVT/E-1 and the action that caused his reduction is not contained in the service record.  

4.  On 23 November 1999, HQDA, U.S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, GA, Orders Number 327-2220, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 2 December 1999.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

There is no counseling statement or UCMJ action in the record.  However, he was discharged as a PVT/E-1, and the action that reduced him in rank is not available in his record.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided none. 

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant’s records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 May 2008, for a period of 4 years and 13 weeks as an 88M, Motor Transport Operator.  

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 applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process.  

3.  The DD Form 214 also indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The applicant's contention regarding an upgrade was carefully considered.  However, it is not possible to determine whether his contention is based on an honorable service because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown.  The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence (i.e., discharge packet) sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet this burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated any misconduct or poor duty performance.

5.  The applicant has expressed his desire to use the benefits of the GI Bill, and VA home loan.  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 applicant contends that he is currently serving on active duty.  However, in view of the applicant’s discharge and the narrative reason for his discharge, it appears that his subsequent enlistment and continued service are insufficient reasons to upgrade the characterization of service that is under current review.  

7.  Therefore, based on the available evidence and the government presumption of regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief. 

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: 	Records Review	  Date:  7   August 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)		AR20130003349



Page 2 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1