IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	30 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130008150
___________________________________________________________________________

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, some his actions were directly linked to his state of mind at the time.  He is taking corrective action for his life and staying sober.  An honorable discharge would open more doors for him and help him to become a more productive citizen.  He desires to go back to school.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		26 April 2013
b. Discharge received:			General, under honorable conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			7 February 2002
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Unsatisfactory Performance, Chapter 13, AR 635-
      200,JHJ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			E Company, 782nd Main Support Battalion, Division 						Support Command, Fort Bragg, NC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:  	30 June 1999, 5 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:  	2 years, 7 months, 8 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 7 months, 8 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		USAR (080513-080915)/NA
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	44E1P, Machinist
m. GT Score:				110
n. Education:				GED Certificate
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		ASR
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 30 June 1999, for a period of four years.  He was 21 years old at the time of entry with a GED Certificate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 44E1P, Machinist.  His record does not document any acts of valor or significant achievements.  He was serving at Fort Bragg, NC when his discharge was initiated.  




SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s service record shows that on 23 January 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance specifically for:

     a.  receiving a Company Grade Article 15 on (020122) for failing to be at his appointed place of duty on several occasions

     b.  receiving a Company Grade Article 15 (020122) for failing to be at his appointed place of duty on several occasions

     c.  receiving a Summarized Article 15 (011102) for failing to be at his appointed place of duty on several occasions

     d.  receiving a Company Grade Article 15 (010124) for failing to be at his appointed place of duty on seven separate occasions

     e.  being counseled on 20 separate occasions for failing to be at his appointed place of duty

2.  The unit commander did not recommend a characterization of service and advised the applicant of his rights.  

3.  On 23 January 2002, 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; however, this statement is not contained in the available record.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  

4.  On 23 January 2002, 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 from the Army on 7 February 2002, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  An Article 15, dated 24 January 2001 for without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 7 (001030, 001207, 001214, 001214, 010111, 010111, 010116); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $272 pay (suspended), and extra duty for 14 days, (CG).

2.  An Article 15, dated 2 November 2001 for without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 2 (011019, 011016); the punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days, (Summarized).

3.  An Article 15, dated 7 January 2002 for without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (011101); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-2 (suspended), forfeiture of $273 pay and extra duty for 14 days, (CG).

4.  An Article 15, dated 22 January 2002 for without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 2 (020111, 020114); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, (CG).

5.  The record shows she received twenty negative counseling statements dated between       7 December 2000 and 14 January 2002, for failing to report on numerous occasions, missing an appointment, missing formations on more than one occasion, and failing to report to his appointed place of duty.

6.  The record contains a Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 July 2011 which indicated the applicant’s thinking process was clear and was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by commander.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, handwritten self-authored statement, three hand written character statements, and a support statement.

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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  

2.  Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases.




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 document 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.  By his unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable characterization of service.  

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 some his actions were directly linked to his state of mind at the time.  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 he had mental problems or misconduct was due to state of mind when the offenses were committed.

5.  The applicant further contends he is taking corrective action for his life and staying sober.  The applicant is to be commended for his effort.  However, 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 an honorable discharge would open more doors for him and help him to become a more productive citizen.  The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

7.  The applicant desires to go back to school.  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.

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

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:  30 October 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)		AR20130008150

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1