IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	13 December 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130009466
___________________________________________________________________________

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 to his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he received injustice leading up to his separation from the Army.  His inability to cognitively focus and sleep well was due to the fact he was suffering from PTSD.  He contends this led him to abuse alcohol and rather than his chain of command hearing his pleas and helping him get the correct treatment, they treated him as an alcoholic and failed to understand what was beneath the surface.  He states the high level of stress he was under drove him to depression and he was later diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by the Veteran Affairs (VA).  He contends he did everything asked of him and his chain of command let him down by failing to assist him with their extensive knowledge of resources that could have accommodated his situation.  He states as a result of his discharge he lost his education benefits he worked for.  He contends he is trying to make up for what he lost during his years as a Soldier. 
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			16 May 2012
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				2 May 2008
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, AR 635-200,
Chapter 9, JPD, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:				68th Combat Support Equipment Company,
Fort Hood, Texas
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		9 November 2004/ 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		3 years, 5 months, 24 days
h. Total Service:				3 years, 5 months, 24 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		21J10, Construction Equipment Operator
m. GT Score:					92
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				SWA
p. Combat Service:				Iraq (051022-061014)
q. Decorations/Awards:			NDSM, ICM w/ BSS GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, 
							CAB, AAM, ARCOM
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No
s. Performance Ratings:			No
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 November 2004 for a period of 4 years.  He was 21 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Iraq, and earned a CAB.  He completed 3 years, 5 months, and 24 days of active duty service.  When discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Hood, Texas.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was command referred for enrollment in ASAP due to a DUI on 15 January 2007.  On 4 April 2007, the applicant was enrolled in ASAP at Fort Hood, Texas and completed training on 27 June 2007.

2.  On 19 December 2007, the applicant was re-enrolled into the ASAP after being found drunk on duty with a breathalyzer reading of .153.  From 14 February 2008 to 13 March 2008, the applicant attended inpatient treatment at the University Behavioral Health-Denton.

3.  On 28 March 2008, the unit commander in consultation with the Chief, Substance Abuse Services, ASAP, declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure.

4.  On 20 April 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure, and specifically for his continued use of alcohol while enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) with a recommendation by the chief counselor to classify him as a rehabilitation failure.

5.  The unit commander advised the applicant of his rights and recommended a discharge from the Army with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions and waiver of any rehabilitation measures.

6.  On 21 April 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in 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 an general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

7.  On 23 April 2008, the separation waiver of further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

8.  The applicant was separated on 2 May 2008, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JPD, and an RE code of 4.  His DD Form 214 shows she was an E-1/PVT at the time of his discharge.  

9.  The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  However, the applicant listed on his online application he was confined by civilian authorities from 1-2 June 2006.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 4 April 2008, for wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties, failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 3 (24-26 March 2008).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $674.00 pay per month for two months, extra duty for 45 days, and restriction to the limits of the barracks, place of work, place of worship, and the dining facility (DFAC) for 45 days (FG).

2.  Article 15, dated 18 January 2008, found drunk on duty on or about 3 December 2007.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $340.00 per month for one month, 14 days of extra duty and restriction (CG). 

3.  Article 15, dated 4 October 2007, for lying to SSG P, in violation of Article 91 of the UCMJ on 19 September 2007.  The punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days (summarized).
      
4.  Nine negative counseling statements dated between 19 January 2007 and 26 March 2008, for high risk of DUI, failure to report to accountability formation x 2, failure to pay his Military Star Card, failure to be at appointed place of duty, disobeying a direct order x 2.  There were two negative counseling statements that were not signed by either the applicant or the counselor for a failed Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) on 17 July 2007 and failure to meet height and weight standards.
      
5.  DA Form 2823, (Sworn Statement), by the applicant on an unknown date in 2007 describing a night out with PVT R, PFC L, and SPC R.

6.  DA Form 8003 (ASAP Enrollment), dated 6 February 2007, for command referral to ASAP.

7.  A memorandum, dated 28 March 2008, by Mr. C, Supervisor, Substance Abuse Services for Mr. S, Chief, Substance Abuse Services.  The memorandum summarized, in effect, the rehabilitation of the applicant.  The applicant was command referred to ASAP after receiving a DUI on 15 January 2007 and for re-assessment on 19 December 2007 after being drunk on duty with a blood alcohol content of .153 on 11 December 2007.  The applicant attended inpatient treatment at the University Behavioral Health-Denton from 14 February 2008 to 13 March 2008.  He missed 4 of 19 appointments scheduled.  After six months of rehabilitation and the applicant’s response to treatment, it was deemed appropriate for the command to consider and initiate appropriate administrative action.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided an online application, dated 12 May 2013, a Department of VA rating decision, dated 15 May 2009, a copy of DA Forms 638 and certificates for award of the Army Achievement Medal (AAM) and the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), Certificate of Vocational Skill Training for Combination Welder -4 Process, and a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any in support of his application.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse.  

2.  A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.  

3.  Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on the applicant’s overall record of service.  However, an honorable discharge is required if limited use information is used in the discharge process.

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 "JPD" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure.

5.  The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JPD" will be assigned an RE Code of 4.

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 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 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 three Articles 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 the Veterans Administration has granted him a service connected disability for PTSD.  However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully.

5.  The applicant contends because of his discharge he lost his educational benefits.  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 records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

7.  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:  13 December 2013     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)		AR20130009466



Page 2 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1