IN THE CASE OF:	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	6 November 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130008569
___________________________________________________________________________

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’s self-authored statement, in pertinent part and in effect, states that since returning from Afghanistan, it seemed like his nerves were always on edge.  He had night sweats, thoughtlessness and feelings of doubt.  He began some therapy counseling.  He was admitted for a 10-12 day stay at a veterans’ association hospital.   Submitting to the help that was available, he was diagnosed with PTSD.  He is doing his best to deal with the anxieties and symptoms associated with PTSD.  He is grateful for the opportunity to have served his country in a time of war.  He pleads to upgrade his discharge.  He listed several awards he received.  He hopes his good deeds outweigh the bad.  His goal and dream is to continue his education, and the opportunity to take care of his two children.  He wants them to look back at his time served in the Army and look at their dad proudly.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	2 May 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	15 February 2012
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-
			12b, JKA, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	Btry B, 2nd Bn, 320th FA Regiment, 1st BCT, Fort 
			Campbell, KY
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	30 October 2008, 4 years 
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 4 months, 6 days 
	h.	Total Service:	3 years, 4 months, 6 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None 
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4 
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	13B10, Cannon Crewmember 
	m.	GT Score:	101 
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate 
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA 
	p.	Combat Service:	Afghanistan (100501-110502) 
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	ARCOM; NDSM; ACM-CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR 
			NATO MDL; CAB
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No 
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None 
	t.	Counseling Statements:	Yes 
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No 




SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 October 2008, for a period of 4 years.  He was 21 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Afghanistan.  He earned an ARCOM, CAB, and completed 3 years, 4 months, and 6 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 23 January 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 having a history of misconduct involving disobeying and being disrespectful toward NCOs, failing to secure sensitive items, and falling asleep on duty.

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 26 January 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 31 January 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 15 February 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:

1.  Article 15, dated 15 November 2011, failing to be at his appointed place of duty (110919), disrespecting an NCO (110919), violating a lawful general regulation (110919).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $429 (suspended), 14 days of extra duty and restriction, (CG). 

2.  Seven negative counseling statements dated between 10 February 2010 and 12 December 2011, for failing to wear proper PT uniform; failing to adapt; failing to report for duty; disrespecting an NCO; having girlfriend and child in barracks room during duty hours; and violating a lawful general regulation.
3.  Memorandum to separation authority, dated 30 January 2012, subject: Chapter 14-12b [regarding the applicant] Request for Rehabilitative Transfer (PCS) and Characterization of Service, rendered by the applicant trial defense counsel.

4.  DA Form 3822, Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 17 January 2012, indicates there was no psychiatric diagnosis and negative results for PTSD and mTBI screening.

5.  DD Forms 2807-1 and 2808, Report of Medical History and Report of Medical Examination, dated 7 January 2012 and 17 January 2012, respectively, are self-explanatory.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided two self-authored statements.

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 general or a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15 action for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and 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 he was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after a 10-12 day stay in a VA hospital.  However, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition or any documentation that reflects the PTSD diagnosis.

5.  The applicant contends that he had good service which included his service in Afghanistan and receiving several awards.  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 multiple negative counseling statements and the documented action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

6.  The applicant has expressed his desire to have better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Further, 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 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 2012      Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

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)		AR20130008569

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1