IN THE CASE OF:	Mr.

      BOARD DATE:  	4 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130005487
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

1.  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 to be both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.  

2.  However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant’s discharge, the Board found that the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 27 contains the erroneous reentry code of 4.  

3.  In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read RE-3, as required by Army Regulations.  




      
      
      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 to upgrade his characterization of service from under other than honorable to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant in his extensive self-authored statement, in pertinent part states, in effect, he deployed to Iraq in 2005 where his platoon was under attack from small arms, mortars, and IEDs, and when home on two-week leave, he went AWOL.  He let his men down completely and regrets doing it.  He returned on his own to face things as a man.  He now knows what caused his actions after dealing with it for six years alone.  He finally sought help from a VA hospital and was diagnosed with PTSD.  He believes if it was properly diagnosed while on active duty, he would have been given a medical discharge.  When he returned home on leave, he didn’t know what PTSD was and is still not entirely sure but has a better idea of what it is.  He dealt with it on his own, unsuccessfully, and lists his PTSD symptoms.  His military record before war was excellent and made E-5 in two years, and was still progressing.  He was the greatest Soldier he could be and loved it, and still loves the Army.  He enlisted, wanting nothing more than to succeed.  He details his performances, accomplishments, recognitions, and his duties.  Since his discharge, he has been through several jobs.  He was separated from his wife for several years.  He lost himself in alcohol.  He found it rough having the PTSD symptoms and trying to raise a daughter.  If not for his wife, he would not be writing and submitting his application for an upgrade.  However, now that he is older and has his family to care for, he has to do the right thing.  By his application, he hopes they do not have to live his shame and guilt as a father who went AWOL.  An upgrade would relieve him of some burden and start him on a new brighter road.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	18 March 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	1 February 2007 
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, 
			Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-4
	e.	Unit of assignment:	Armor Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team 
			(Forward) (Provisional), 4th ID, Fort Carson, CO 
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	16 September 2004, 4 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 11 months, 22 days
	h.	Total Service:	5 years, 3 months, 24 days
	i.	Time Lost:	147 days
	j.	Previous Discharges:	RA (010514-031106) / HD 
			RA (031107-040915) / HD
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-5
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	14R20, Bradley Linebacker Crewmember
	m.	GT Score:	110
	n.	Education:	GED
	o.	Overseas Service:	Korea, SWA
	p.	Combat Service:	Iraq (050306-060306) 
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	AAM-3; AGCM; NDSM; GWOTEM; GWOTSM; 
			KDSM; NPDR; ASR; 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 14 May 2001, and reenlisted twice, the latter being on 16 September 2004, for a period of 4 years.  He was 17 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED).  He served in Korea and Iraq.  He earned three AAM’s and a CAB.  He completed 5 years, 3 months, and 24 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record shows that on 21 November 2006, 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, commission of a serious offense for being AWOL 17 September 2005 through 10 February 2006. 

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 29 September 2006 (note that this date precedes the date of his notification), the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.  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 4 December 2006, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights.  

5.  On 19 December 2006, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel.  The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

6.  On 23 January 2007, 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 and to be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.

7.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 1 February 2007, 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 4. 

8.  The applicant’s record of service indicates 147 days of time lost for being AWOL from 17 September 2005, until his apprehension on 10 February 2006.  (Note the DA Form 4187, Personnel Action, indicates AWOL apprehension without further information.) 

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 5 June 2006, AWOL (050917-060210).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of $900 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction, (FG). 

2.  A negative counseling statement, dated 13 July 2006, for being AWOL and pending chapter 14 for misconduct.

3.  Two NCOERs covering the period of November 2005 to June 2006 and February 2005 through October 2005.  On both reports, the applicant was rated as “Marginal” and received 5/5 from the senior rater.  A previous NCOER for period February 2004 through January 2005 shows the applicant was rated as “Among the Best” and received 1/1 from the senior rater. 

4.  DA Form 1059, Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 4 September 2004, indicates the applicant achieved the course standards of primary leadership development course.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided with his self-authored statement, supporting statements from his spouse, father, and mother; four sworn statements on the applicant’s character; and State VA forward cover letter, dated 15 March 2013.  

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none.  

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 the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the documents and 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 serious incident of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general or a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15 for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and a negative counseling statement.

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

4.  The applicant contends the Veterans Administration diagnosed him with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition or any VA correspondence reflecting PTSD diagnosis or treatment.  Moreover, the record shows that on 29 June 2006, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong, and knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation.  Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully.

5.  The applicant contends that he was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged.  However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  

6.  The applicant contends that he had good service which included his outstanding performances, accomplishments, recognitions, and his service in Iraq.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the serious incident of misconduct, a documented action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

7.  The applicant has expressed his desire to have better job opportunities and perhaps the VA benefits.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Further, 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 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.  Accordingly, the records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

9.  However, the service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, reentry code as 4.  The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge by reason of misconduct (serious offense).  AR 635-5-1, (Separation Program Designator Codes) and Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier processed for misconduct (serious offense) will be assigned an SPD Code of JKQ and an RE Code of 3.  

10.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief, and notwithstanding the propriety of the discharge, further recommend the Board change block 27, reentry code to 3, as approved by the separation authority.


SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review      Date:  4 October 2013      Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  1	No Change:  4
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:	No Change
Change Reason to:			No Change
Change Authority for Separation:	NA
Change RE Code to:		3
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)		AR20130005487

Page 7 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1