IN THE CASE OF:	

      BOARD DATE:  	30 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130006919
___________________________________________________________________________

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 to upgrade his characterization of service from under other than honorable to general, under honorable conditions or honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he is trying to obtain the benefits he earned by his serving in Iraq.  He would like to use the education benefits he paid into that was part of his enlistment deal.  He is unable to do anything with the type of discharge he received.  He is also currently locked up and would like to look good when others view his DD Form 214 and to send it before the board that does time cuts.  He feels he deserves an honorable discharge or at least, a general, under honorable conditions.  He served his country in Iraq and Korea.  He would like to go on with his life and be able to be buried like a Soldier with respect.  An upgrade would also allow his daughters to receive any benefits they can receive.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	8 April 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	19 December 2005
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200 
			paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	Co C, 123rd Aviation Regiment (AVIM), 4/159th 
			Aviation Regiment (AVIM), 507th Corps Support 
			Group (Airborne), Iraq
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	3 April 2003, 4 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 8 months, 0 days
	h.	Total Service:	2 years, 8 months, 0 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-3 
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist
	m.	GT Score:	87
	n.	Education:	GED
	o.	Overseas Service:	Korea, SWA
	p.	Combat Service:	Iraq (NIF) 
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	NDSM; GWOTSM; KDSM; ASR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	Yes
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	Yes
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 April 2003, for a period of 4 years.  He was 18 years old and had a high school equivalency (GED).  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  He served in Iraq and Korea.  He completed 2 years and 8 months active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record shows that in an undated memorandum, 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 for commission of serious offense for receiving an Article 15 (050630) for: conspiring with another Soldier to steal a M998 Truck equipped with a PLGR and MTS, stealing the M998 Truck from the housing area of the 7th Transportation Battalion, wrongfully disposing of the M998 Truck by dropping it at a location different than its origination, and making a false official statement to a CID Agent by saying that he and two other Soldiers stole the vehicle and drove it to his, the applicant’s room.  An additional notification in an undated memorandum informed the applicant of reinitiating the separation action, because of additional misconduct for having threatened people in his unit and their families, and making a snide remark that he, the applicant, would be back in the Army in two years and mentioning he was previously in jail with a $50,000 hit on his life, and receiving other Article 15 actions not available to his current command. 

2.  Based on the above misconduct and the additional misconduct, the unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 

3.  On 14 September 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon his receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions.  The applicant 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 19 September 2005, the separation authority disapproved the request for conditional waiver and the applicant’s case was referred to an administrative separation board. 

5.  On 19 September 2005, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights.  

6.  The record of evidence does not include the administrative separation board that convened.  However, the available evidence indicates the board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

7.  On 15 October 2005, 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.

8.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 19 December 2005, 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 3. 

9.  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 30 June 2005, conspiring to commit an offense (050514), making a false official statement (050519), wrongful disposition of military property of a value of about $36,735 (050514); larceny of military property of a value of about $36,735 (050514).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $692 per month for two months (suspended), 45 days of extra duty and 45 days of restriction (suspended), (FG). 

2.  Supplementary action under Article 15, dated 13 August 2004, vacation of suspended punishment of reduction to E-2 and forfeiture of $668 pay per month for 2 months, for disobeying a commissioned officer (040723), FG.

3.  Article 15, dated 7 July 2004, disobeying an NCO on two occasions (040510, 040427).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2 (suspended), forfeiture of $668 per month for two months (suspended), 20 days of extra duty and restriction, (FG).
      
4.  Thirteen negative counseling statements, dated between 5 March 2004 and 19 July 2005, for communicating a threat; failing to report to his appointed place of duty; disobeying an NCO; lying to an NCO; disobeying and disrespecting an NCO; disrespecting a commissioned officer; assaulting a Soldier; larceny of government property; making a false official statement; conspiring; wrongful disposition of government property; and CID reported incidents. 

5.  A CID Report dated 16 June 2005, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for larceny, making false official statement, conspiracy; and wrongful disposition of government property.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided none.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, that he is currently locked up.  

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, 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 incidents of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a general or a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by 3 Article 15 actions for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and numerous negative counseling statement.

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 obtain the benefits that he earned by serving in Iraq, specifically, his educational benefits.  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 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.  

6.  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:  30 October 2013       Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Representative:  Ms. Zenia Dixon, 2462 South Pine Lea Drive, Jackson, MS 39209

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)		AR20130006919



Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1