IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	29 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130004834
___________________________________________________________________________

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 that 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 from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was a young recruit and did not understand the consequences of the discharge and when he was asked if he wanted to get out of the Army he said yes.  He states that the situation that caused his discharge was proven wrong.  He would like another chance to rejoin the Army. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		11 January 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			16 December 2005
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, 14-12b, JKA
      RE-3        
e. Unit of assignment:			Network Spt Co, Special Troops Bn, Fort Drum, NY
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	14 October 2004, 6 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 2 months, 3 days
h. Total Service:			6 years, 5 months, 17 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		ARNG (990630-00-07-09) / NA                                  						IADT   (000710-010215) / HD
ARNG (010216-030331) / HD
USARCG (030401-041013) / NA
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4	
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	94F10, Special Electronic Devices Repairer
m. GT Score:				100
n. Education:				High School 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:		Yes	
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 30 June 1999 and on 31 March 2003, he was discharged honorably.  On 14 October 2004, the applicant entered the Regular Army for a period of 6 years.  He was 21 years old at the time and was a high school graduate.  He was serving at Fort Drum, NY when his discharge was initiated.  His record does not show any acts of valor or meritorious achievements.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The evidence shows that on 28 November 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, specifically for the following offenses:

a. wrongful appropriation of a privately owned vehicle (050812)
b. failure to report to his designated place of duty on 11 occasions (050906-051011)
c. with intent to deceive made a false statement (050909)
d. left his place of duty without authorization (051007)
e. disobeyed a lawful order from a commissioned officer on multiple occasions (between 051006-051026)  

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

3.  On 28 November 2005, the applicant declined legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit a statement on his 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 of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 30 November 2005, 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 16 December 2005, for a pattern of misconduct, under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, with a RE code of 3, and a SPD code of JKA.  

6.  The service record does not show any period of lost time.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  A field grade Article 15, dated 8 October 2005 for 6 specification of failure to report to his place of duty and providing a false statement.  His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of pay in the amount of $617.00 (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction.

2.  A company grade Article 15, dated 1 September 2005, for wrongfully misappropriating a privately owned vehicle.  His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, 14 days of extra duty and restriction.

3.  A vacation of a suspended sentence dated 14 October 2005 for a new offense of failing to report.

4.  A summary court-martial adjudged on 18 November 2005, for 4 specifications of failing to report, 1 specification of leaving his place of duty without proper authority, and 1 specification of disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a 60-day restriction and a forfeiture of pay in the amount of $823.00. 

5.  Nine negative counseling statements dated between 12 August 2005 and 12 October 2005 for failing to report, drunk and disorderly, trespassing, and wrongful appropriation of a motor vehicle.

6.  Military Police Report dated 26 October 2005, in reference to the applicant’s offense of trespassing and drunk and disorderly on post.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

The applicant provided two DD Forms 214, an email, and a NGB Form 22.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were provided with the application.

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

2.  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 repeated incidents of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s service was marred by two Article 15s for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a summary court-martial and numerous negative counseling statements.

3.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

4.  The applicant contends that he was young at the time and did not understand the consequence of his actions.  However, the record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  He was 21 years when he entered the Regular Army and there is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  Furthermore, the applicant had the opportunity to learn more about the consequence of the discharge but his record indicates that on 28 November 2005, he declined legal counsel and forfeited his opportunity to better understand the adverse nature and possible consequences of such a discharge.

5.  Further, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Based on AR 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3.  There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code.  An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist.  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 

6.  Records show the proper discharge procedures were followed in this case.

7.  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:	29 May 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 RE Code to:			No Change
Grade Restoration to:			NA
Change Authority for Separation:		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	UOTH - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable
ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR 20130004834

Page 6 of 6 pages



ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1