IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	21 August 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130004764
___________________________________________________________________________

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, to include his combat service, and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board further 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/SPC.



      
      
      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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he had been undergoing psychiatric care for and extended period of time and was undergoing a trial period where he was taken off his medication; and his misconduct occurred shortly thereafter.  

He had previously received multiple awards, accolades, and recognition throughout his 6 years of successful service.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			4 March 2013		
b. Discharge Received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				7 June 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Misconduct, (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, 								Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				Headquarters Support Company, Division 							Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion, 3rd 							Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA		
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		11 October 2011, 2 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		7 months, 26 days
h. Total Service:				6 years, 11 months, 10 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			RA 050628-070703, HD
RA 070704-111010, HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-5
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		19D10, Cavalry Scout 
m. GT Score:					113
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				South West Asia
p. Combat Service:				Iraq (100328-101019), (091101-100217), and 								(070507-080801)
q. Decorations/Awards:			ARCOM-4, AAM-3, AGCM-2, NDSM,         								ICM-3CS, GWOTSM, NPDR, ASR, OSR-2, 								CAB
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		Yes
s. Performance Ratings:			Yes
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 Jun 2005 and reenlisted on 11 October 2011, for a period of 2 years.  He was 17 years old at the time of his initial entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Iraq, earned four ARCOM’s, three AAM’s, two AGCM’s, a CAB,  and completed 6 years, 11 months, and 10 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record shows that on 8 March 2012, 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 misconduct serious offense for the following offenses:

      a. receiving several counseling’s for failure to report on three separate occasions;  
      b. insubordinate conduct towards a Superior Noncommissioned Officer on two separate 	occasions;
      c. making a false official statement;
      d. an incident was reported against the applicant on 31 August 2011 for battery;
      e. an incident was reported against the applicant on 2 September 2011 for the theft of a 	Toshiba Laptop and a 2000 Chevy Silverado;
      f.  receiving a Field Grade Article 15 for disrespect to a Superior Noncommissioned 	Officer on 18 January 2012;
      g.  being apprehended by the Military Police for assault consummated by battery on    	21 December 2011;
      h.  being apprehended by the Military Police for arson in the 3rd degree and later being 	transported to the county jail;
      i.  making threats to hit someone while an inmate, and then hitting his head towards the 	metal detector, causing an incident report to be filed due to criminal damage to property 	in the 1st degree IAW GA code 16-72. 

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 2 April 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon his receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions.  The applicant submitted 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 13 April 2012, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights.  

5.  On 9 May 2012, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant’s counsel appeared on his behalf.  The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.
  
6.  On 23 May 2012, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

7.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 7 June 2012, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3. 

8.  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 18 January 2012, disrespectful in language toward a superior noncommissioned officer on (111221); disrespectful in deportment toward a superior noncommissioned officer on (111221); assaulted a superior noncommissioned officer on (111221).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of $1,181.00 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction, (FG). 

2.  Six negative counseling statements dated between 4 January 2012 and 14 February 2012, for being recommended for separation under Chapter 14-12b, insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer (two), failure to be at appointed place of duty, lying to an NCO, failure to report (two) .

3.  A county police report dated 31 August 2011, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for battery.

4.  A county police report dated 2 September 2011, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for theft of two laptop computers and a truck.

5.  A county police report dated 22 January 2012, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for criminal damage to property under the family violence act.

6.  A county police report dated 24 January 2012, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for threatening o hit someone while an inmate and then hitting the metal detector with his head.
      
7.  An MP Report dated 21 December 2011, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for being involved in a verbal altercation which turned physical.  

8.  An MP Report dated 25 January 2012, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for being involved in a verbal altercation which turned physical and 3rd degree arson.  

9.  Two NCOER’s, the first covering the period of 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2010 and shows the applicant was rated as among the best and received 2/1 from the senior rater.  The second NCOER covered the period of 26 August 2011 to 20 January 2012 and was submitted due to Relief for cause and sows the applicant was rated as marginal and received 5/5 from the senior rater.

10.  Report of mental status evaluation dated, 18 January 2012 which indicates the applicant was mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

 The applicant provided a DD Form 293, ARBA correspondence, an NCO evaluation report, a service school academic evaluation report, recommendation for an award, a letter of support from a prior military co-worker, letter of intent for medical board processing, physical profile, numerous military award certificates, excellence in armor enrollment memorandum, a DD Form 214 and two copies of a DD Form 214c. 

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were 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.  

2.  After examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the documents and the issues 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 had reenlisted for a two year enlistment and had served 7 months, 26 days; however he had completed two prior periods of honorable for a total of 6 years, 11 months, and 10 days of service, thus the preponderance of his service was honorable.

	b. The record confirms the applicant received multiple awards, specifically 4 ARCOMs three of which were for combat tours and 3 AAMs one of which was for a tour in combat.

	c.  The applicant submitted evidence that supports there were mitigating medical circumstances that shows he had suffered a bi-polar break and was recommended for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).

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 that prior to his period of misconduct he was an outstanding Soldier; although, the applicant’s misbehavior is not condoned the analyst determined his prior good service was sufficient to warrant partial relief.    

5.  In view of the foregoing, it appears the characterization of the discharge is now inequitable and it is recommended the Board grant partial 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:  21 August 2013       Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel: None

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:		Yes
Change Characterization to:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
Change Reason to:			NA
Change Authority for Separation:	NA
Change RE Code to:		NA
Grade Restoration to:		E-4/SPC
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)		AR20130004764



Page 7 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1