IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	4 September 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130005301
___________________________________________________________________________

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 an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his discharge should be changed because at the time of his discharge he was in Korea with very poor guidance from his chain of command.  He found himself sickly and confused; orders from the chain of command became abusive, driving him towards mental health issues such as confusion, lack of sleep, and memory loss.  He desires to receive VA benefits to apply for college.  He desires to reenlist in another branch of the military.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		14 March 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			4 July 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct , AR 635-200, Chapter 14 						paragraph14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			E Co, 3-2nd Aviation Battalion, APO AP 96271 
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	19 April 2011, 3 years and 23 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 2 months, 16 days
h. Total Service:			1 year, 2 months, 16 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist
m. GT Score:				97
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Korea
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		No
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 April 2011, for a period of 3 years and 23 weeks.  He was 21 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist.  His record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements.  He achieved the rank of PFC/E-3.  He was serving in Korea when his discharge was initiated.


SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 12 June 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct.  Specifically for the following offenses:

a.  receiving a Company Grade Article 15 (120501) for failing to report on ten separate occasions

     b.  disobeying a lawful order

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 12 June 2012, it appears the applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action; the applicant’s elections of rights was authenticated by the applicant’s signature; however, he did not indicate what elections he chose and did not indicate If he did or 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 27 June 2012, 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’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  

6  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 4 July 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  An Article 15, dated 1 May 2012 for willfully disobeying a lawful order from SFC W (120103); and without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed o his appointed place of duty x (111201, 111213, 120104, 120112, 120228, 120306, 120307, 120327, 120328, 120402); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $389 pay, extra duty for 14 days, restriction for 14 days and an oral reprimand, (CG).

2.  He received 13 negative counseling statements which were completed between 1 December 2011 through 18 April 2012 for failing to report to his place of duty on divers occasions, missing an appointment, disobeying a direct order, being flagged/recommended for separation action under Chapter 14. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided two online applications.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any 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 record, 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 an Article 15 and 13 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 his discharge should be changed because at the time of his separation he was in Korea with very poor guidance from his chain of command.  The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.

5.  The applicant further contends he found himself sickly and confused; orders from the chain of command became abusive, driving him towards mental health issues such as confusion, lack of sleep, and memory loss.  The record of evidence shows on 10 May 2012, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicated he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, and it was deemed non-contributory to his misconduct.  This condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and the characterization of service granted.

6.  Further, 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.  

7.  The applicant desires to receive VA benefits to apply for college.  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.

8.  The applicant desires to reenlist in another branch of the military.  Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3.  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. 

9.  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:  4 September 2013      Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify:  No

Counsel:  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:		No Change
Change RE Code to:			No Change
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)		AR20130005301



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1