IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	13 November 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130007748
___________________________________________________________________________

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 inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 12 years of service.  His service included Operation Desert Storm, numerous deployments, and time as an instructor at Fort Knox.  The incident was a DUI.  A military judge found him not guilty of the DUI, but his company commander and battalion commander requested a general discharge because he demanded a trial by court-martial.  In 12 years of service, he never received a negative counseling statement or performance review until he left the Army in 1999.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		18 April 2013
b. Discharge received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			19 June 1999
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, Chapter 9,                						AR 635-200, JPD, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:			HHC, 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment (Sep), APO 					AE 09173 
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:  	23 May 1994, 6 years (includes a 6 month extension)
g. Current Enlistment Service:  	5 years, 0 months, 27 days
h. Total Service:			12 years, 6 months, 16 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (861204-890412), HD										RA (890413-940522), HD 					
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-6
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	63T10 BFVS Mechanic
m. GT Score:				NIF
n. Education:				GED
o. Overseas Service:			SWA, Germany
p. Combat Service:			Kuwait (900823-910321)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM-7, AAM-8, AGCM-3, NDSM, SWASM-w/BS-						2, HSM, NPDR-2,  ASR, OSR-2, KLM
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		Yes
t. Counseling Statements:		No
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 December 1986 for a period of 3 years.  He was 18 years old at the time he joined the Army and had a high school equivalency (GED).  He reenlisted two additional times and was serving at Vilseck, Germany when his discharge was initiated.  His record shows he received an seven ARCOMs, eight AAMs, three AGCMs, and two NPDRs.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The applicant’s service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates that on 19 June 1999, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, for alcohol rehabilitation failure, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JPD and a reentry (RE) code of 4.  

3.  The applicant’s available record does not show any recorded actions under the UCMJ, unauthorized absences or time lost.  

4.  On 13 April 1999, Headquarters, United States Army Europe, Vilseck, Germany, APO, AE 09112, Orders Number 103-3, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 19 June 1999.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  Twelve NCOERs covering the period June 1990 through December 1998.  All of the NCOERS were successful with the exception of the final report (reflected the DUI).

2. A college transcript from Elizabethtown Community College.

3.  Two Service School Academic Reports (DA Form 1059s).

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, six NCOERs, three ARCOMs, two AAMs, three Certificate of Achievements, a college transcript, two diplomas from East Arkansas Community College, a memorandum from the Department of Veterans Affairs (PTSD), and a DD Form 214.

 POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

Attended college.






REGULATORY AUTHORITY  

1.  Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse.  

2.  A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.  

3.  Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on the applicant’s overall record of service.  However, an honorable discharge is required if limited use information is used in the discharge process.

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 issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The only pertinent evidence available for review regarding the applicant's discharge is the separation authority’s approval memorandum and the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, which was authenticated by the applicant.  The DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, for alcohol rehabilitation failure. 

3.  For this type of discharge, the applicant would have been enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) and would have been aware of the consequences of any action which would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program.  Inasmuch as the applicant's official record is void of the circumstances leading to his discharge, it is presumed that he was identified as a rehabilitation failure subsequent to his enrollment in the ASAP program.  Therefore, it is also presumed that the applicant was properly counseled and afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome his problems, and chose not to avail himself of this opportunity. 

4.  The applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 12 years of service.  Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  

5.  The applicant contends his service included Operation Desert Storm, numerous deployments, and time as an instructor at Fort Knox.  The applicant is commended on his overall service record; however, without the case separation documents available for review, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service.  Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge.  

6.  The applicant contends a military judge found him not guilty of the DUI, but his company commander and battalion commander requested a general discharge because he demanded a trial by court-martial.  However, the applicant has not provided any proof to support these contentions.  He had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain legal assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance.  Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge.  The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  

7.  The applicant provided a memorandum from the Veterans Administration showing he was diagnosed with PTSD.  However, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  

8.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the complete discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record.

9.  Therefore, based on the available evidence and the government presumption of regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief. 














SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review     Date:  13 November 2013     Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  2	No Change:  3
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)		AR20130007748



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1