IN THE CASE OF:	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:	29 January 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130010309
___________________________________________________________________________

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 states, in effect, he has been diagnosed with PTSD and schizo-effective disorder and is trying to get better.  VA has rated and treated him for his disability.  He is living in a homeless shelter.  He is experiencing significant barriers to employment as he would like to work again. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	24 May 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	12 October 2007
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-
			12b, JKA, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	E Co, 3rd Bn, 10th Aviation Regiment (GSAB), 10th 
			Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, NY
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	13 July 2005, 3 years, 2 weeks (per enlistment 
			documents)
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 3 months, 0 days
	h.	Total Service:	3 years, 3 months, 29 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	USAR (040614-050712) / HD 
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	88M10, Motor Transport Operator
	m.	GT Score:	97
	n.	Education:	One semester of college
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA
	p.	Combat Service:	Afghanistan (060208-070122)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	NDSM; ACM; ASR; OSR; NATO MDL
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	Yes
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The applicant’s enlistment records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 July 2005, for a period of 3 years and 2 weeks.  He was 21 years old at the time of entry and completed a semester in college.  He served in Afghanistan.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  He completed 3 years, 3 months, and 29 days of active duty and reserve service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 21 September 2007, 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, specifically for displaying a recurring and habitual pattern of misconduct, as follows:

	a.	beginning in 2005, he disrespected and struck a noncommissioned officer;
	b.	being continuously counseled for multiple counts of failing to report to his appointed 
		place of duty;
	c.	failing to obey orders and regulations; and
	d.	being insubordinate and disobedience to both commissioned and noncommissioned 
		officers.

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 27 September 2007, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf; however, there is a statement in the file.  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 2 October 2007, 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 12 October 2007, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA 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.  Article 15, dated 7 September 2006, failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on two occasions (070801, 070417), being disrespectful in language towards an NCO (070724).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $815 per month for two months (suspended), 45 days of extra duty and 45 days of restriction (suspended), oral reprimand, (FG). 

2.  Article 15, dated 16 November 2005, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (050915), assaulting and disrespecting an NCO (051016), disobeying an NCO on three separate occasions (051013, 050908), being disrespectful in language towards an NCO (050908), being derelict in the performance of his duties (050830).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3 and forfeiture of $339, (CG). 

3.  Multiple counseling statements and associated sworn statements dated between 14 October 2005 and 25 September 2007 documenting misconduct including failing to go to his appointed place of duty, failing to follow orders, disrespect, insubordination, striking a non-commissioned officer, communicating a threat, and dereliction.

4.  A DA Form 3822-R, Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 27 May 07 which states an Axis I diagnosis of occupational problem and an Axis II diagnosis of Cluster B traits.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a certificate for Medal of Merit presented by the State of New York Adjutant General, dated 6 January 2009; ERB, dated 9 August 2007; VA correspondence, dated 24 April 2013, indicating a 100 percent combined rating of disability with certificate to receive military commissary and exchange privileges. 

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, 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 pattern 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 two Articles 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 requests a change to his narrative reason for his discharge because the Veterans Administration has granted him a service connected disability for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (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.  The record shows that on 20 September 2007, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong, and that there was no evidence of an emotional or mental condition of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through medical channels.  Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully.  Further, his record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication.  In fact, a DD Form 2808, Report of Medical Examination, dated 9 July 2007, ultimately found him qualified for service.  Accordingly, the available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels.

5.  Moreover, regarding a change to the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge, the record reflects he was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "pattern of misconduct," and the separation code is "JKA."  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 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.  

6.  The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

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:  29 January 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)		AR20130010309

Page 7 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1