IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	18 December 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130010685
___________________________________________________________________________

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 his discharge was based on an isolated incident.  He contends his discharge was the result of the medication he received from a prior dental surgery.  He was proud to serve in the Army which was noted by the many medals and ribbons he received.  He also contends he served faithfully in combat during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		5 June 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			14 January 2011
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, 							Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HHD, 78th Avn Bn, APO AP
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	16 November 2006, 6 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	4 years, 1 months, 29 days
h. Total Service:			4 years, 1 months, 29 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	15T10, UH-60 Helicopter Repairer
m. GT Score:				119
n. Education:				GED
o. Overseas Service:			Southwest Asia, Japan
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (070508-080729)
q. Decorations/Awards:		AAM-2, AGCM, ICM-w/CS, NDSM,GWOTSM, ASR, 						OSR
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 16 November 2006, for a period of 6 years.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED).  His record indicates he served a period of combat in Iraq; earned several awards including two AAM's and an AGCM, and achieved the rank of SPC/E-4.  He completed 4 years, 1 month, and       29 days of military service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 8 November 2010, 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 of misconduct (serious offense) for receiving a Field Grade Article 15 (101027) for wrongful use of Oxymorphone (100729), failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 2 (100615 and 100902), and dereliction in the performance of his duties (100819).

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 December 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived his right to an administrative separation board (which he was not entitled too), 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.  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 14 January 2011, 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 service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  There is a positive urinalysis report contained in the record coded; IR, (Inspection Random), 29 July 2010, oxymorphone.

2.  An ASAP enrollment form, dated 22 September 2010, which indicates the applicant was command referred for positive urinalysis.

3.  Article 15, imposed on 27 October 2010, for the wrongful use of oxymorphone (100729), failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 2 (100615 and 100902), and dereliction in the performance of his duties (100819).  Punisment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1 (FG).



4.  Five negative counseling statements dated between 16 June 2010 and 21 September 2010, for testing positive for on a company urinalysis, failure to be at his appointed place of duty, disobeying lawful order from a senior noncommissioned officer, disrespect/insubordination, and failure to repair.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, a self-authored statement, letter of support (5), copy of a police report, dated 15 May 2013, and a copy of his 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 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 his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by a Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and several 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 several awards and ribbons and deployment to 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 incidents of misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

5.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  

6.  The applicant also contends his discharge was based on an isolated incident.  Even though the applicant claims that his discharge was based on an isolated incident; the evidence of record shows the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct, expected of Soldiers in the Army.  Having examined all the circumstances, the numerous incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.

7.  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:  18 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)		AR20130010685



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1