IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	25 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130006899
___________________________________________________________________________

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, he would like to receive VA benefits to attend school to become a better person.  Since his discharge he has become an honorable citizen.  He was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and believes his inability to adhere to military standards was due to this diagnosis.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date 		8 April 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			14 September 2011
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct , AR 635-200, Chapter 14 						paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			210th Brigade Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat 					Team, Fort Drum, NY
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	17 February 2011, 3 years/block 12a on the DD Form 						214 dated entered active duty this period, is incorrect 						and should read (080116)
g. Current Enlistment Service:	6 months, 28 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 7 months, 29 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (080116-110216)/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic
m. GT Score:				109
n. Education:				GED Certificate
o. Overseas Service:			Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (091001-100616)
q. Decorations/Awards:		AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-W/CS, GWOTSM, ASR 						OSR
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 16 January 2008, for a period of 3 years and 25 weeks.  He was 21 years old at the time of entry with a GED Certificate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic.  On 17 February 2011, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years; he was 24 years old at the time.  His record also shows he served a combat tour, earned several awards including an AAM, AGCM and achieved the rank of SPC/E-4.  He was serving at Fort Drum, NY when his discharge was initiated.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 9 August 2011, 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 offense:

     a.  being convicted of fourth degree criminal possession of a weapon

     b. being convicted third degree aggravated unlicensed operation of a vehicle   

     c.  passing through a red light

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 11 August 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and indicated he intended to 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 31 August 2011, 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, time lost or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

6  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 14 September 2011, 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.  The record contains a City Court of Watertown, Certificate of Disposition document, dated 21 April 2011 which indicated the applicant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon.

2.  The record also contains Jefferson County Sheriff Documents/Jefferson County Correctional Facility, dated 18 March 2011, which indicated the applicant was arrested and confined for carrying an illegal weapon 3rd degree.

3.  He received two negative counseling statements which were completed on 18 March 2011 and 8 April 2011, for failing to stop at a red light, driving with a suspended license, carrying an illegal weapon on his person, and being advised his post driving privileges were reinstated. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293; and two outpatient psychiatric evaluations consisting of nine pages.

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, his military records and the issues and documents 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 two negative counseling statements and several civil authority documents.

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 would like to receive VA benefits to attend school and become a better person.  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.  The applicant further contends since his discharge he has become an honorable citizen.  The applicant is to be commended for his effort.  This contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued.  

6.  The applicant also contends he was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and believes his inability to adhere to military standards was due to this diagnosis.  The independent documents (psychiatric evaluations) the applicant submitted with his application are acknowledged, which indicated he had a history of a schizoaffective disorder; he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and prescribed several medications.

7.  Further, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  The record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication.

8.  Also, the applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his mental issues impaired his ability to serve successful.

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:  25 October 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)		AR20130006899



Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1