IN THE CASE OF: Mr.
BOARD DATE: 28 August 2013
CASE NUMBER: AR20130004823
___________________________________________________________________________
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 APPLICANTS REQUEST AND STATEMENT:
1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.
2. The applicant states, in effect, he feels his discharge is inequitable because he is a combat vet and served honorably. While deployed to Iraq he failed an APFT and was processed out. The type of discharge he received was not warranted. He should have disputed what he was charged with but he didnt have any fight left. He just took the punishment, and that is what really hurts because he should have fought for an honorable discharge.
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:
a. Application Receipt Date: 8 March 2013
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 11 July 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unsatisfactory Performance, AR 635-200, Chapter 13, JHJ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: Bravo Company, 1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, Camp Buehring, APO AE
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 24 March 2010, 5 years, 33 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 3 months, 18 days
h. Total Service: 2 years, 3 months, 18 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 25B10, IT specialist
m. GT Score: 118
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: South West Asia
p. Combat Service: Iraq (110702-111231)
q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ICM-CS, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: No
t. Counseling Statements: No
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 March 2010, for a period of 5 years and 33 weeks. He was 19 years old at the time of entry, a high school graduate, served in Iraq, and completed 2 years, 3 months, and 18 days of active duty service.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. The applicants 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 applicants signature.
2. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 11 July 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JHJ and a reentry (RE) code of 3.
3. The applicants record shows that on 13 May 2012, the separation authority approved and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions.
4. The applicants available record does not show any recorded actions under the UCMJ, unauthorized absences or time lost.
5. On 31 June 2007, DA HQ III Corps, Fort Hood, TX, Orders Number 179-0142, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 11 July 2007.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:
The case separation files are incomplete.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:
The applicant provided a DD Form 149, Veterans Service Commission cover letter, and a DD Form 214.
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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.
2. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicants record of service, his 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 applicants 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 13, AR 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JHJ and a reentry (RE) code of 3. 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 about failing the APFT while in Iraq were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicants statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this 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 Boards 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: 28 August 2013 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify? No
Counsel: None
Witnesses/Observers: NA
Board Vote:
Character Change: 2 No Change: 3
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) AR20130004823
Page 5 of 5 pages
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)
CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE
1
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130011165
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 6 June 2013, an undated self-authored statement, a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), a memorandum, dated 1 September 2012, from the United States Army Trial Defense Service, Fort Carson, four letters of support, and a letter to Congressman Jackie Speier, dated 24 October 2012, from MG...
ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110018672
Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 18 April 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for failing two consecutive Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFTs), with a fully honorable discharge. On 27 April 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be separated, with a general, under...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130007948
IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 15 November 2013 CASE NUMBER: AR20130007948 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the reason for separation is inequitable based on there being no derogatory information in his file. ...
ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120005942
Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he received a Chapter 13 and discharged under a general discharge for failure of two consecutive physical fitness tests; he was not given an opportunity for a change in unit; he has never received an Article 15 in his whole career in the Army; and he has received the Army Good Conduct Medal for every three years of service. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 9...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080005839
Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 13 February 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for failure to pass five consecutive record APFTs, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unsatisfactory Performance ", and the separation code...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130015636
After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the examiners Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the overall quality of the applicants service; he was discharged for the sole reason of failing to meet the minimum standards of the APFT and that his service record does not contain any other derogatory information. The applicants...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090014505
Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 20 October 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for failing two consecutive record Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT) and seven diagnostic APFTs, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. By his unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130003827
IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 27 September 2013 CASE NUMBER: AR20130003827 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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. On 16 February 2011 the separation...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130007017
After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the characterization of service is too harsh and as a result it is inequitable based on the following reason: The unit commanders memorandum indicated the applicant was discharged for the sole reason of failing to meet the minimum standards of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and the record did not contain any...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130007900
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 November 2013 CASE NUMBER: AR20130007900 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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. Four negative counseling statements dated 7...