IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	20 November 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130008058
___________________________________________________________________________

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 characterization from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that it has been ten years since his discharge and would like to have it upgraded from general under honorable conditions.  He now receives disability, and is rated at 50%.  He is receiving medical benefits with no vision or dental benefits which he desperately needs.  He is enrolled at Everest Institute working towards a degree in Business Administration, trying to better himself for his family. He was told that he did not qualify for the chapter 33 post 911 GI Bill even though he is disabled.  He needs his discharge upgraded in order to have the military pay for his schooling.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		29 April 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:			16 January 2002
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			USA MEDDAC-AK, Ft. Wainwright, AK 
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	7 July 2000, 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 6 months, 10 days
h. Total Service:			1 year, 6 months, 10 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	71G10, Patient Administration Specialist 
m. GT Score:				94
n. Education:				HS graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Alaska 
p. Combat Service:			None 
q. Decorations/Awards:		ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	Yes
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes	
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 July 2000, for a period of 
3 years.  He was 18 years old at the time and a high school graduate.   The applicant’s record does not show any significant achievements or acts of valor.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Wainwright, AK.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 25 October 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of pattern of misconduct; specifically for:

      a.  Committing larceny of private property.  
      b.  Committing self-injury without intent to avoid service.  
      c.  Receiving numerous counseling for bad debts and false official statements. 

2.  Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 26 October 2001, 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 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 27 November 2001, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights.  

5.  On 18 December 2001, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel.  The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

6.  On 7 January 2002, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendation of the administrative separation board, waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

7.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 16 January 2002, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3. 

8.  The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 8 August 2001, making a false official statement to an MP that his car was involved in a hit and run accident which was totally false (010625).  The punishment consisted of 14 days extra duty (Summarized). 
2.  Article 15, dated 16 October 2001, stealing a .25 caliber semi-automatic pistol, valued at more than $100.00, (010819 and 010909).  The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $521.00 pay for two months; extra duty for 45 days; restriction for 45 days (FG).

3.  Four negative counseling statements dated between 15 May 2001 and 13 September 2001, for indebtedness, pattern of misconduct, making a false official statement, visitation privileges restricted, and financial counseling.

4.  An MP Report with allied documents; dated 9 September 2001, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for larceny of private property.

5.  A Commander’s Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action, dated 26 October 2001, reflecting the status of the disciplinary action taken against the applicant for the following offenses:  larceny of private property, and self injury with intent to avoid service. 

6.  A DA Form 2823, Sworn Statement, dated 9 September 2001 in which the applicant details his injuring himself with a firearm.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 15 April 2013; and a DD Form 214.  

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

1.  The applicant’s record reflects his enlistment into the Ohio Army National Guard on 29 April 2004, for a period of six years.  He was discharged from the National Guard on 31 December 2005, with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  The reason for the discharge was drug abuse, rehabilitation failure. 

2.  The applicant stated that he is enrolled at Everest Institute, working toward a degree in Business Administration.

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 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 Articles 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and several negative counseling statements.

3.  The applicant appeared before an administrative separation board which recommended that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

4.  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.  

5.  The applicant’s issue about an upgrade based on the time that has elapsed since the discharge was carefully considered.  However, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable.

6.  The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill.  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.

7.  The applicant has expressed his desire to receive vision and dental benefits; however, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining medical, vision or dental benefits.  

8.  The applicant states he is enrolled in college to attain a degree in Business Administration, trying to better himself.  The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings.  The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

9.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

10.  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:  20 November 2013        Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel:  None

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)		AR20130008058



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1