IN THE CASE OF:	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	9 December 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130008066
___________________________________________________________________________

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 general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he understands he brought discredit to the Army, his unit, platoon, and family.  However, he made a bad mistake that was an isolated incident.  He wishes to go back and change it, but he can’t and can only move forward.  He loved every man he served with in the Army.  He was very proud to wear the uniform and wishes he was still in the Army.  He was hired as a corrections officer and is currently in the corrections academy, a job he takes seriously just like he did in the Army.  In addition, he was never arrested, handcuffed, or gone to jail for the incident that led to his separation.  He has also received an AAM for competing in a competition.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	23 April 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	1 February 2013
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, 14-12c 
			JKQ, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	A Co, 4th STB, 4BCT, 101st Airborne Division (Air 
			Assault), Fort Campbell, KY
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	5 March 2012, 3 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	0 years, 10 months, 27 days
	h.	Total Service:	4 years, 1 month, 27 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	RA (081230-120304) / HD
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	12N10, Horizontal Construction Engineer
	m.	GT Score:	101
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	None
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	NDSM, GWOTSM, NPDR, ASR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	Yes 
	u.	Prior Board Review:	Yes, 5 April 2013 

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 December 2008, and reenlisted on 5 March 2012, for a period of 3 years.  He was 23 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He was serving at Fort Campbell, KY, when his discharge proceedings were initiated.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  He completed 4 years, 1 month, and 27 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The record shows that on 3 December 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), specifically for being:

      a. found in possession of concealed merchandise in a Wal-Mart store 
      b. cited by a civilian police for attempting to steal merchandise

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 5 December 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and indicated he would submit a statement on his behalf (NIF).  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 14 December 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 on 1 February 2013, for misconduct (serious offense), under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, with an SPD code of JKQ and a RE code of 3.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  The record does not contain any actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

2.  Three negative counseling statements, dated between 1 and 12 September 2012, for debt collection action, bar to reenlistment, and being arrested by a civilian police.  

3.  A misdemeanor citation dated 1 September 2012, for attempting to steal merchandise in the amount of $747.00 and concealing the said merchandise.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant did not provide additional evidence. 

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, he was hired as a corrections officer and is currently attending the corrections academy. 

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 incident of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by documentary evidence that shows he was arrested and later charged for attempting to steal and concealing merchandise in the amount of $747.00; thereby, a commissioned of a serious offense, and three 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 the incident that caused his discharge was an isolated incident.  Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The applicant's serious incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  

5.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the serious incident of misconduct.

6.  The applicant contends that since leaving the Army he was hired as a corrections officer and is currently attending the corrections academy.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  

7.  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.  

8.  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:  Record Review    Date:  9 December 2013    Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

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)		AR20130008066

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1