IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	3 July 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130003355
___________________________________________________________________________

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 was unjustly discharged.  He contends he was never given a reason for separation.  He submitted EEO complaints, went to the IG and nothing was ever done and suddenly he was discharged.  He feels the character of his discharge was unduly applied.  The Army was downsizing at the time of his discharge.  He also contends that contraband was found in the general area of his room, he volunteered to be drug tested; however, a drug test was not conducted.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		11 February 2013
b. Discharge received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			21 June 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14 						paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			USA MEDDAC, Fort Sill, OK
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	31 December 2008, 6 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 5 months, 21 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 5 months, 21 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l.  Military Occupational Specialty:	68K10, Medical Laboratory Specialist
m. GT Score:				115
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			None 
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		No
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 December 2008, for a period of 6 years.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He was serving at Fort Sill, OK when his discharge was initiated.  The record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements.  He completed 3 years, 5 months, and 21 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 21 June 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of 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.  On 13 June 2012, DA USA Installation Management Command, Headquarters United States Army Garrison, Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK, Orders Number 165-1314, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 21 June 2012.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

There are no counseling statements or UCMJ actions in the record.  However, he was discharged as a PV2/E-2; the action that reduced him in rank is not available in his record.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided two DD Form 293s.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None provided by the applicant.

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 available military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The applicant’s available 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.  

3.  The DD Form 214 also indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern 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 contentions that he was unjustly discharged and that he was never given a reason for his separation were carefully considered.  However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged.  The applicant’s statement alone does not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.   

5.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record.

6.  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:  3 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 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)		AR20130003355



Page 2 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1