IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	21 August 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130005131
___________________________________________________________________________

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 his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to utilize his GI Bill benefits for education.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		11 March 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			5 September 2002
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct, AR 635-200 Chapter 14 								paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HHS, 3rd Bn, 321st FA Rgt, Fort Bragg, NC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	9 July 2001, 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 1 month, 27 days
h. Total Service:			6 years, 0 months, 14 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA-960822-990331/HD										RA-990401-010708/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-5
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	92G10, Food Service Specialist
m. GT Score:				95
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Korea
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		Yes
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 August 1996.  After serving two periods of enlistment he reenlisted on 9 July 2001, for a period of 3 years.  At the time of reenlistment he was 22 years old and a high school graduate.  His record indicates he served a period of service in Korea and achieved the rank of E-5.  The record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements.  He was serving at Fort Bragg, NC when his discharge was initiated.  He completed a total of 6 years and 14 days of total active duty service.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 26 July 2002, 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).  Specifically for the following offenses: 

a. disobeying a lawful order on several occasions

b. larceny

c. failing to go to his appointed place of duty on several occasions

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 29 July 2002, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and indicated his intention to submit a statement on his own behalf which was not found in the record.  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 9 August 2002, 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 5 September 2002, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and a 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 18 June 2002, for stealing a pair of Nike Jordan Tennis Shoes, the property of AAFES, a value of less than $100.00 (020114).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of $840.00 pay per month for two months, extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days (FG).
      
2.  Six negative counseling statements dated between 11 March 2002 and 6 June 2002, for failure to report, release of duty, failing to follow an order, and disobeying a lawful order.

3.  Service School Academic Evaluation Report for the primary leadership development course (PLDC) which the applicant achieved course standards.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant submitted a DD form 293.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None 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 issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating 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 incidents of serious misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge.  His service was marred by an Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and six 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 indicated his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to utilize his GI Bill benefits for education.  However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.

5.  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:  21 August 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)		AR20130005131



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1