IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	9 August 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130003523
___________________________________________________________________________

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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  This action entails restoration of grade to E-4.




      
      
      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 under other than honorable conditions to general, under honorable conditions. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he feels the punishment, reduction in grade to PVT-E1 and separation under other than honorable (UOTH) conditions, is quite harsh for the offense committed.  It was the first time he failed a urinalysis test in 19 months prior to discharge.  Soldiers have committed acts of violence or put into prison and received UOTH discharges.  Soldiers have failed multiple urinalysis tests and been given general, under honorable conditions discharges.  He feels he was discriminated against.  He consistently passed his APFTs, scored Sharpshooter or better on my weapons qualification, have no disciplinary action on his record (even as little as an Article 15), and passed every urinalysis test since the one he failed in June 2011.  He has the full support of the 313th Army band, as well as, the entire chain of command, except the commanding general, MG B.  The offense was committed nearly two full years ago, and he does not understand why a lifetime punishment with a bad mark on his record would be sufficient for one failed urinalysis test
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	11 February 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	31 January 2013
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	AR 135-178, Chapter NIF
	e.	Unit of assignment:	313 AG Band, Birmingham, AL
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	22 November 2008, 8 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	4 years, 2 months, 10 days
	h.	Total Service:	4 years, 2 months, 10 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	ADT 090514-090821/HD (Concurrent Service)
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	42R10, Army Bandsperson
	m.	GT Score:	NIF
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate 
	o.	Overseas Service:	NIF
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	NDSM, ASR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	Yes
	s.	Performance Ratings:	Yes
	t.	Counseling Statements:	NIF
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

On 22 November 2008, the applicant joined the U.S. Army Reserve for a period of 8 years.  He was 17 years old at the time and was a high school graduate.  He served a total of 4 years, 2 months, and 10 days in the U.S. Army Reserve.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The available evidence shows the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the United States Army Reserve.  

2.  The record indicates that on 19 December 2012, Department of the Army, Headquarters, 81st Regional Support Command, Fort Jackson, SC, Orders 12-354-00062, discharged the applicant from the United States Army Reserve, effective 31 January 2013, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

Discharge orders.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided the separation decision memorandum, dated 17 December 2012; memorandum for the commander, subject; Request for Upgrade of Administrative Separation Board’s Discharge Recommendation, dated 5 November 2012, rendered by applicant’s defense counsel; e-mail correspondence, dated between 8 November 2012 and 26 November 2012, regarding the applicant’s separation; memorandum for the applicant, dated 5 May 2012, subject: Notification of Separation Proceedings Under AR 135-178, Chapter 12, rendered by the commander who recommended the applicant be retained upon initiating separation for a positive urinalysis collected on 20 June 2011; memorandum for the commander, subject: Request for Retention, dated 6 May 2012, rendered by the unit commander; 3 character reference letters, dated 10 July 2011; an undergraduate transcript indicating a substance abuse course; 2 discharge orders, dated 19 December 2012, one indicating General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge, and the other indicating Under Other than Honorable Conditions discharge.  

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none. 

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities.  

2.  The characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier’s service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army Regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army.  The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. 

3.  Possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general, under honorable conditions, under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status.  However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered.  

2.  After examining the applicant’s record of service, the issues, and documents submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to general, under honorable conditions for the following reasons.  

	a.	Length and quality of service:  The applicant served 4 years and 2 months of an 8-year enlistment, thus the preponderance of his service was honorable.

	b.	His unit commander and first sergeant have both recommended his retention.  The unit commander further provided the applicant’s acknowledgment of the misconduct, and accepting responsibility and expressing remorse, including his demonstrated maturity since his positive result that occurred in June 2011 and his continued performance as an asset and musical leader in the unit.

	c.	The applicant’s character reference provided by letters and an e-mail have provided laudatory comments of his performance and being a valuable member of the unit, and further provided support for his retention.

3.  This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct.  The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service may now be too harsh and as a result inequitable. 

4.  The applicant contends Soldiers who committed serious misconduct including incarceration, and others who have multiple failed urinalysis were given general, under honorable conditions discharges, and feels he was discriminated against.  However, the method in which another Soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case.  Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case.  

5.  In view of the foregoing and based on the available records, it appears the characterization of the discharge is now inequitable and it is recommended that the Board grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable.


































SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: 	Records Review	  Date:  9 August 2013      Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  Yes (redacted)  

Witnesses/Observers:  NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  3	No Change:  2
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:	General, Under Honorable Conditions	
Change Reason to:  		No Change
Change Authority for Separation:	NA
Change RE Code to:		NA
Grade Restoration to:		E-4/SPC
Other:  				

TO: ARBA Promulgation Team. Arlington, VA                                       Date: 12 August 2013

     The Army Discharge Review Board, under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant named in page 1, directs the ARBA Promulgation Team, Arlington, VA to issue a new discharge order to the applicant which reflects the following directed changes:

           ( X  )	Change characterization of discharge to General, Under Honorable Conditions. 
           ( X  )	Restoration of grade to E-4/SPC.








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)		AR20130003523



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1