IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	15 November 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130009299
___________________________________________________________________________

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 an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was unjustly treated and discharged.  He contends he was suffering from a mental health condition during the time of discharge and did not receive help from his command.  He contends he was checked for PTSD by a medical doctor who indicated in his medical documents that he needed further testing for possibly having PTSD but that was ignored.  He contends he has been diagnosed with PTSD by the VA, was not given the opportunity for rehabilitation, and received no help from his chain of command because his leadership did not like him.  He served honorably and would like his characterization of service changed to reflect that.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		15 May 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			27 September 2011
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14						paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			A Co, 3d Bn, 69th AR Rgt, 1st HBCT, 3d IN Div, 						Fort Stewart, GA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	10 April 2010, 5 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 5 months, 18 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 3 months, 29 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA-080529-100409/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	11B10, Infantryman
m. GT Score:				97
n. Education:				GED
o. Overseas Service:			Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (091214-101205)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ICM-w/CS, NDSM, 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 29 May 2008, for a period of 3 years and 16 weeks.  He was 17 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED).  On 10 April 2010, he reenlisted for a period of 5 years.  His record indicates he served in Iraq and achieved the rank of SPC/E-4.  The record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements.  He completed a total of 3 years, 3 months, and 29 days of total military service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 17 August 2011, 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 failure to be at his appointed place of duty on diverse occasions, assaulting a Soldier, and consuming alcohol while under the legal drinking age.

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 18 August 2011, 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 14 September 2011, 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 27 September 2011, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3. 

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Booking Report, dated 7 November 2009, which indicated the applicant was charged for public drunkenness.

2.  Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment document, dated 8 March 2011, which indicates the applicant had been arrested for public drunkenness and public indecency (Aug 09), Article 15 for being AWOL (Aug 10), Article 15 for underage drinking (Mar 11).
3.  Article 15, imposed on 8 April 2011, for unlawfully striking SPC D.C.B., in the abdomen with his fists (110306), underage drinking (110306), and being incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties (i.e. drunk on duty) (110307).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $429.00 per month for two months, and 14 days of extra duty (CG).  The record is void of any other UCMJ actions.

4.  Mental Status Evaluation Report, dated 15 June 2011, which indicates the applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence and adjustment disorder with anxiety.  The report also indicates he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings, was mentally responsible, and needed further examination.
      
5.  Nine negative counseling statements dated between 1 October 2009 and 27 June 2011, for public drunkenness, public indecency, missing movement, absence without leave, missing formation, being drunk on duty, underage drinking, assault on another Soldier, failure to report for duty, and missing an appointment on 20 June 2011 with a psychologist.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, a self-authored statement, and a DD Form 214 for the period of service under review.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were provided with the application.

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, the document and the issue 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 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 and nine 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 unjustly treated and discharged by his command.  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 any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly treated and discharged.  In fact, the applicant’s Article 15 and numerous negative counseling statements 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.









5.  The applicant contends he was not afforded the opportunity for a rehabilitation transfer; however, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements states, the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier.  After reviewing the applicant’s discharge packet, the separation authority properly waived the rehabilitative requirements.  Moreover, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.

6.  The applicant also contends he was suffering from a mental health condition at the time of discharge and did not receive any help from his command and that he was diagnosed with PTSD by the VA.  The record shows that on 15 June 2011, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible with thinking process as clear.  It was noted by medical authority that a more thorough psychological evaluation was set for the applicant to have testing specifically for PTSD on 20 June 2011; however, counseling records show the applicant missed that appointment and no record of any other appointment was found in the record.  Therefore, 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.  

7.  Furthermore, 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.

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:  15 November 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)		AR20130009299



Page 2 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1