IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	27 September 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130006894
___________________________________________________________________________

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, that his discharge was the result of an isolated behavioral period after his third deployment.  He contends he deployed three times in two years.  He sought medical attention several times with no success.  He believes the contributions and sacrifices he made for the United States of America and what his family has gone through during his deployments warrant an honorable discharge. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		8 April 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			21 March 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14,						paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HHC, 189th CSSB, Fort Bragg, NC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	14 January 2009, 3 years and 36 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 2 months, 8 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 2 months, 8 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	25B10, IT Specialist
m. GT Score:				116
n. Education:				GED
o. Overseas Service:			Southwest Asia, Haiti
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (110225-111129) and Afghanistan (100427-						100801)
q. Decorations/Awards:		AAM-2, ACM-w/CS, ICM-w/CS, NDSM, GWOTEM, 						HSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL, MUC
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 Regular Army on 14 January 2009, for a period of 3 years and   36 weeks.  He was 21 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED).  His record indicates he served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti; earned several awards to include two AAM's and achieved the rank of SPC/E-4.  He completed a total of 3 years, 2 months, and 8 days of active military service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 6 March 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 pattern of misconduct.  Specifically for the following offenses:  

a. failure to report to his appointed place of duty x 6 (110709, 111212, 111214, 120208, 120225, and 120227)

b. being disrespectful in language and deportment to two noncommissioned officers (110718)

c. derelict in the performance of his duties (110913)

d. giving a false official statement to a noncommissioned officer (111213)

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 8 March 2012, the applicant was given the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit 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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 12 March 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 was discharged from the Army on 21 March 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, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an 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, imposed on 14 October 2011, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (110709).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $493.00 pay (suspended), and extra duty for 14 days (CG).

2.  Article 15, imposed on 30 January 2012, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 2 (111214 and 111216).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $745.00 pay per month for two months, extra duty for 45 days, and an oral reprimand (FG). 

3.  Ten negative counseling statements dated between 9 July 2011 and 8 February 2012, for insubordinate conduct toward a non-commissioned officer, lying to a noncommissioned officer, failure to obey an order, failure to be at his appointed place of duty.
      
4.  An MP Report dated 22 November 2009, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for failure to remain right when traveling below legal speed limit.

5.  An MP Report dated 20 November 2011, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for impaired driving (.09%).

6.  Copy of court documents, dated 22 November 2009 from the State of North Carolina, Cumberland County court about the applicant's offenses of driving while impaired and failing to maintain lane control.

7.  Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 February 2012, indicating the applicant had been diagnosed with for opioid abuse, adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and conduct.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293.

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 the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the document 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 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 2 Article 15's for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and several 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 he had good service to include three deployments in two year and deserves an honorable characterization.  However, by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of pattern of misconduct.  It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge.  

5.  The applicant contends the incident that caused his discharge was an isolated incident.  However, the record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct, expected of Soldiers in the Army.  Having examined all the circumstances, it was determined that the applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.

6.  The applicant also contends he sought medical attention several times with no success.  The report of mental status evaluation in the record indicates the applicant was diagnosed for opiate abuse, adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and conduct.  However, it was determined the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong.  

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:  27 September 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)		AR20130006894

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1