IN THE CASE OF:	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:	12 February 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130008646
___________________________________________________________________________

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 the characterization of his service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable, and to change the narrative reason for his discharge.

2.  The applicant in his extensive self-authored statement, in pertinent part and in effect, would like his discharge upgraded and the narrative reason for his discharge be removed from his DD Form 214.  He states he was young, very immature, newly married, and a father.  He asserts when he reported to his first assignment, he informed his leadership of his family’s financial situation, the worsening of his wife’s health, and obtaining several AER loans for in-transit expenses.  Being regularly dismissed due to the financial strain and his wife’s illness interfered with his participation in training exercises.  His chain of command were fully aware of his situation, but did little to help resolve his issues.  When his unit was preparing to participate in an NTC field exercise, his wife was in the hospital in critical condition and his household lacked the essentials, he was unable to participate.  When the unit returned, he was informed of an Article 15 action for missing movement—he pleaded with his commander and related he was having financial duress, and elected to plead his case in a summary court-martial, to allow him to explain his situation to a different chain of command.  He explained he missed movement because of having financial issues and his spouse’s medical condition, but instead was found guilty and reduced in rank.  He was also informed he would not deploy with his unit and that he would be chaptered out and was put in the rear detachment.  Subsequently, he was processed out of the Army.  He concludes he now knows as a Soldier, husband and father of three young children, that he made many mistakes at his first duty station from destitute of knowledge and ineffective communication and understanding.  He realizes what the Army and this great nation is about and what they mean to him.  Therefore, he is asking for another opportunity to prove he can become a committed and professional Soldier in the US Army.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	2 May 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	18 July 2012
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, 
			Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	4th Bn, 23rd Infantry Regiment (Rear) (Provisional)  
			2nd Bde (SBCT) (Rear) (Provisional), 2nd Infantry				Division, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	23 August 2010, 3 years, 16 weeks
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 10 months, 26 days
	h.	Total Service:	1 year, 10 months, 26 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-3
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	11B10, Infantryman
	m.	GT Score:	85
	n.	Education:	15 years
	o.	Overseas Service:	None
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR
	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 23 August 2013, for a period of 3 years and 16 weeks.  He was 28 years old at the time of entry and completed approximately three years of college.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  He completed a year, 10 months, and 26 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 21 May 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason misconduct (serious offense), specifically for missing movement, in violation of Article 87, UCMJ.

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

4.  On 3 July 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 18 July 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ 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.  DD Form 2329, Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 28 February 2012, reports that the applicant was found guilty of violation of Article 87, UCMJ, in that he did, at or near Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA, (111030), through design, missed the movement of his unit, which he was required in the course of duty to move.  The result of trial indicated that the sentence of reduction to PV2/E-2 was adjudged on 28 February 2012.

2.  Article 15 (FG), dated 13 December 2011, for the aforementioned offense, indicates the applicant, having been afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel and understanding his rights, elected to demand trial by court-martial. 

3.  A negative counseling statement, dated 28 November 2011, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time; missing movement; and failing to obey an order or regulation.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided with his self-authored statement, a copy of his assignment orders and discharge orders, and several packets of documents (each labeled from “File # 1” through File # 7”):  File 1 consists of AER related documents; File 2, medical-related documents; File 3, budget/financial-related documents; File 4, Department of Human Resources benefits card; File 5, missing movement charge-related documents (charge sheet and Article 15); File 6, various community service-related documents (transportation, household goods, education, etc.); and File 7, two character reference statements, enlistment document, certificates/training records, and infantry training diploma. 

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.

4.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (serious offense).

5.  The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge and to change the narrative reason for 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 or a change to the narrative reason for his 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 a summary court-martial conviction for violation 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.  By regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of serious misconduct.  It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a general, under honorable conditions (GD), instead of the normal UOTHC discharge.  

5.  The applicant contends he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to his misconduct.  Specifically, he claims family issues, involving his spouse’s medical issues and being under financial duress, which affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged.  While the applicant may believe his stated issues were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought further relief from stress through the Chaplain and other medical resources available to all Soldiers assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.  

6.  The applicant contends that he was young, very immature, newly married, and a father at the time of the discharge.  The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

7.  The applicant also requested a change to the reason for his discharge.  However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "misconduct,” and the separation code is "JKQ."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.  

8.  The applicant expressed a desire for another opportunity to prove he can become a committed and professional Soldier in the US Army.  However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3.  There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code.  An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist.  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate.

9.  The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s performance.  They all recognize his good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant’s chain of command.  As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity or to upgrade the characterization of discharge.

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

11.  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:  12 February 2014     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)		AR20130008646

Page 7 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1