IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	16 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130004261
___________________________________________________________________________

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, he believes his discharge is an injustice, because his spouse and battalion did not support him.  He was a good soldier who was always on time and did his job very well.   His unit would not hear his side of the story. They were only worrying about discharging him immediately.  It has been two years now and he is having a hard time finding a job.  He recently had a postal job but his military background did not clear him, because of his current discharge.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	25 February 2013 
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions 
	c.	Date of Discharge:	8 September 2011 
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-
			12b, JKA, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	1st Bn, 8th Cav Rgmt (Rear) (Provisional), 2nd BCT 
			(R) (P), 1st Cav Div (R) (P), Fort Hood, TX 
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	13 August 2009, 2 years (However, ERB shows ETS 
			date of 7 November 2014 and commander’s 
			memorandum shows reenlistment on 8 November 
			2009, for 5 years.)
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 0 months, 26 days
	h.	Total Service:	4 years, 11 months, 7 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	RA (061002-090812) / HD
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist 
	m.	GT Score:	83
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA
	p.	Combat Service:	Iraq (070707-080106), (090112-091219)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	ARCOM-2; AGCM; NDSM; ICM-2CS; GWOTSM; 
			ASR; OSR; MUC
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	Yes 
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 October 2006, and reenlisted on 13 August 2009, for a period of 2 years.  He was 21 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Iraq.  He earned two ARCOM awards.  He completed 4 years, 11 months, and 7 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 22 July 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct, specifically for the following offenses:  

	a.	assaulting his wife by grabbing her around the throat and dragging her off the couch (110101). On or about 12 April 2011, you assaulted Kayla J. Hall, your wife, by unlawfully 
	b.	assaulting his wife by unlawfully grabbing, shaking and scratching her on the left arm with his hands (110412). 
	c.	being counseled for failing to secure the company supply room at the close of business on 2 March 2011 and ordering supplies under an unauthorized fund code for the unit (110303). 
	d.	being counseled for failing to have SGT M sign for four (4) Dazzler Lasers and you sign for three (3) digital cameras from the battalion S-4, but failed to issue them to the line platoon leaders as he was instructed to do by 1LT L, the Company Executive Officer (110110).

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

3.  On 25 July 2011, the applicant waived consulting with legal counsel, indicated he understood the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on his own 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 19 August 2011, 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 discharged from the Army on 8 August 2011, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3. 

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




EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 14 June 2011, assault (110412).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $366 per month for two months (forfeiture of $733 suspended), 45 days of extra duty and restriction, (FG). 

2.  Vacation of Suspended Punishment, 10 June 2011, assault (110412), reduction to E-3 vacated.

3.  Article 15, dated 28 March 2011, assault (110101).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $520, 14 days of extra duty and restriction, (CG).

4.  Seven negative counseling statements dated between 1 January 2011 and 28 June 2011, for assaulting spouse; being arrested for domestic violence; proper supply accountability and handreceipting, and ensuring properly equipping platoons for missions; leaving supply room unattended; lying; ordering supplies under wrong fund code; Lautenberg Amendment requirement for domestic violence; and being processed for administrative separation.

5.  Two MP Domestic Violence Supplement Reports, dated 1 January 2011 and 12 April 2011, that indicate the applicant was the subject of an investigation for domestic violence and assault. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided none.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none. 

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 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 3 Article 15 actions for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and numerous negative counseling statements.

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 he believes he was discharged unfairly, because his spouse and unit did not support him.  However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the impositions of non-judicial punishments.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.

5.  The applicant contends that he had good service which included always being at his appointed place of duty on time and performing well.  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 warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

6.  The applicant contends that it is difficult for him finding employment.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

5.  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.  Accordingly, the records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

6.  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:  16 October 2013       Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

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	UOTHC - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions


ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20130004261



Page 4 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1