IN THE CASE OF:	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:	24 January 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130008888
___________________________________________________________________________

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 under other than honorable to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he is requesting a change of his military discharge status because he feels the discharge has hindered him from achieving his personal goals.  He is not making any excuses for his conduct.  He was young and did not fully appreciate the extraordinary opportunity he was afforded to mold a positive future for himself.  If his request is granted, he would reenlist and fulfill his previously agreed obligation.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	7 May 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	19 August 2003
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b, JKA, 
			RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	HHT, 1st Sqdn, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Bde, 1st 
			Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX 
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	7 February 2001, 4 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 6 months, 13 days
	h.	Total Service:	2 years, 6 months, 13 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-2
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist
	m.	GT Score:	90
	n.	Education:	GED
	o.	Overseas Service:	None
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	NDSM; ASR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	Voluntarily waived without any contingency
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	Yes
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 February 2001, for a period of four years.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED).  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  He completed two years, six months, and 13 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record shows that on 2 July 2003, 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 for the following actions:

a.	receiving a CG Article 15 for disobeying an NCO and failing to report (011201); 
b.	receiving a CG Article 15 for disobeying an NCO and failing to report (020618);
c.	receiving a summarized Article 15 for disobeying and disrespecting an NCO (030103);
d.	receiving a CG Article 15 for failing to report (030317); and
e.	receiving numerous negative counseling statements.

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 

3.  On 8 and 16 July 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon his receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions, but subsequently waived the board without any contingency.  The applicant 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 commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  Although the separation authority decision memorandum is not available record, the DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged from the Army on 19 August 2003, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3.  

5.  On 19 August 2003, HQDA, III Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, TX, Orders Number 231-0208, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 19 August 2003, pursuant to orders published for the commander, HQs, III Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, TX.

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 10 December 2001, for disobeying an NCO on two occasions (011123, 011121), failing to go to his place of duty at the prescribed time on three occasions (011123, 011119, 011118).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $243, 14 days of extra duty and restriction, (CG). 

2.  Article 15, dated 26 June 2002, for failing to go to his place of duty at the prescribed time on three occasions (020429, 020419, 020418), disobeying an NCO on two occasions (020411, 020417), violating a lawful general regulation (020418).  The punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty and restriction, (CG).

3.  Summarized Article 15, dated 24 January 2003, for disobeying an NCO on three separate occasions (021211), disrespecting an NCO (021211).  The punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty and restriction, (CG).

4.  Article 15, dated 17 March 2003, for absenting himself without authority from his appointed place of duty (020212).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $268 (suspended), 14 days of extra duty and restriction, (CG).

5.  Twenty negative counseling statements, dated between 10 October 2001 and 15 April 2003, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty; displaying poor attitude; failing to present his military ID card; disrespecting an NCO; operating a POV without driver’s license; failing to follow instructions; missing formations; disobeying orders; sleeping on duty; and failing to render proper military courtesy.

6.  DA Form 1594, Daily Staff Journal or Duty Officer’s Log, dated 20 and 21 June 2002, with entries detailing events involving the applicant.

7.  Memorandum, dated 7 January 2002, subject:  RBI for PLDC, details the events surrounding the applicant failing to attend a class. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided none.

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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, pattern of misconduct.

5.  The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" 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 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 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 four Article 15 actions for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and numerous 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 that he was young and immature at the time of the incidents that led to his 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.

5.  The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge to achieve his personal goals, perhaps relating to allow him educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill.  However, 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. 

6.  The applicant requests a change to the characterization of his service in order to rejoin the Army.  However, at the time of discharge, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.  Army Regulation 601-280 stipulates that an under other than honorable conditions discharge constitutes a nonwaivable disqualification, thus the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment.

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.  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:  24 January 2014     Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  1	No Change:  4
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)		AR20130008888

Page 7 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1