IN THE CASE OF:	

      BOARD DATE:  	6 November 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130008568
___________________________________________________________________________

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 pertinent part and in effect, an upgrade would help him secure a better job, a career in the police force; however, no agency will hire without an honorable discharge.  During his military service, the only issues were with his weight and APFT.  He served at Fort Stewart for the entire four years with an MP company.  When a new leadership arrived, he received an Article 15, and months later, a separation packet was initiated repeatedly using the same statements.  He had gotten along with the previous chain of command.  However, the new unit commander and first sergeant took less than a year for them to demote and separate him.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	2 May 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	26 June 2012
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-
			12b, JKA, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	293rd MP Co, 385th MP Bn, Fort Stewart, GA
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	15 July 2008, 5 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 11 months, 12 days
	h.	Total Service:	3 years, 11 months, 12 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4 
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	31B10, Military Police
	m.	GT Score:	128
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA
	p.	Combat Service:	Afghanistan (090730-100723)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	ARCOM; AAM; NDSM; ACM-2CS; GWOTSM; ASR 
			OSR; NATO MDL
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	NIF
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No 

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 July 2008, for a period of 5 years.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Afghanistan.  He earned an ARCOM and an AAM.  He completed 3 years, 11 months, and 12 days of active duty service.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 30 April 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct, specifically for receiving a company grade Article 15 for three separate counts of failing to report and two counts of disobeying an NCO (111207).

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 30 April 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and 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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 7 June 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 from the Army on 26 June 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3. 

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

The applicant’s record contains no counseling statement or the Article 15 action that was the basis for his separation.  However, the commander’s forwarding memorandum, undated, indicates the applicant received a CG Article for violating Article 86, UCMJ, on three occasions and Article 91, UCMJ, on two occasions.  The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $455 (suspended), 14 days of extra duty and restriction.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided three counseling statements, dated 13 April 2012, 21 October 2011, and 22 November 2011. 

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none.  


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 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 pattern 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 an Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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 that he had good service without any adverse incident until his new chain of command arrived.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents 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 repeated incidents of misconduct or by the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

5.  The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because he got along with his previous chain of command, and had no issues until his new chain of command arrived.  However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discriminated.  In fact, the applicant’s Article 15 with violations of the UCMJ on several occasions justify a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.  

6.  The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment.  However, the Board does not grant relief 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:  Records Review      Date:  6 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)		AR20130008568

Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1