IN THE CASE OF:	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:	2 December 2013

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130009000
___________________________________________________________________________

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.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, although he did not complete his full term of service, he believes that his service was honorable.  He was a platoon leader in boot camp without any trouble.  At his duty station, he maintained and conducted himself with high military standards and kept in line with all code of ethics of the military.  He served a full tour in Iraq and was considered an ideal Soldier.  He made a mistake of going AWOL after returning from deployment; however, he kept in contact with an NCO and eventually turned himself in on his own free will.   He does not believe the grave mistake of going AWOL should take away all his benefits.   He concludes he is a veteran who fought in a war and sacrificed and gave to his country.  He served over two years of his three-year term in the Army.  He asks to reconsider his request to upgrade his service to honorable; not only for title purposes but also that he may better himself as a person.  He wants to be able to afford going back to school by using his GI Bill he paid into and also to one day be able to get a house with the VA Loan. 
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	9 May 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	19 September 2005 
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense, AR 
			635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	Regimental HHT, 3rd ACR (Rear), Fort Carson, CO
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	28 August 2002, 3 years 
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	5 years, 4 months, 6 days
	h.	Total Service:	5 years, 4 months, 6 days
	i.	Time Lost:	260 days
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4 
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	19K10, M1 Armor Crewman 
	m.	GT Score:	97 
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA
	p.	Combat Service:	Iraq (030415-040414)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	NDSM; ASR; GWOTEM; GWOTSM
	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 28 August 2002, for a period of 3 years.  He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Iraq.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 5 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 29 August 2005, 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) for being AWOL on two separate occasions (050317-050720, 040908-050120).  

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 29 August 2005, the applicant waived consulting with legal counsel, indicated he understood 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.  In an undated memorandum, 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 19 September 2005, 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 record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) during two separate periods:

	a.	8 September 2004 through 20 January 2005 – record reflects he returned to his unit on 20 January 2005.

	b.	17 March 2005 through 19 July 2005 – MP report shows, he surrendered to military authorities on 20 July 2005.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 3 March 2005, for being AWOL (040908-050120).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $617 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction, (FG). 
2.  Two negative counseling statements, dated 2 February 2005 and 20 July 2005, for being AWOL and recommended for courts-martial due to desertion/AWOL.
      
3.  An MP Desk Blotter Report, dated 3 August 2005, that indicates the applicant surrendered to military authorities from being in a desertion status.  

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.

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 serious incidents 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 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 that he had good service which included serving in Iraq.  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 serious incidents of misconduct and the documented action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

5.  Furthermore, although the applicant did not present issues that may have affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  

6.  The applicant has expressed his desire for VA benefits, specifically the benefits 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.

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:  2 December 2013     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)		AR20130009000

Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1