IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	23 April 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130010711
___________________________________________________________________________

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, he feels that due to his service in Afghanistan that he had problems adapting to service stateside.  He currently has steady employment.  With the upgrade to honorable he can use his educational benefit which he would like to do so he can go back to School, and further his education.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		5 June 2013
b. Discharge received:			General, under honorable conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			30 April 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Unsatisfactory Performance, AR 635-200, Chapter 						13, JHJ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			F Company, 10th Brigade Support Battalion, 1st 						Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light 						Infantry), Fort Drum, NY
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:  	17 July 2008, 4 years, 18 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:  	3 years, 9 months, 14 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 9 months, 14 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	88M10, Motor Transport Operator
m. GT Score:				94
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			SWA
p. Combat Service:			Afghanistan (100331-110331)
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, ACM-w/CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO 
					Medal
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 17 July 2008, for 3 years and 21 weeks.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and was a high school graduate.  He was serving at Fort Drum, NY, when his discharge was initiated.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievements; however, he served a combat tour in Afghanistan.


SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The applicant’s service record shows that on 5 September 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for failing two Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).   

2.  The unit commander recommended an honorable discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.  

3.  On 31 January 2012, the applicant decline to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on his behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  

4.  On 15 March 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The applicant was not transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group.

5.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 30 April 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 13, paragraph 13, AR 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JHJ 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.  Numerous counseling statements covering the period 31 October 2010 through 30 September 2011, for failing the APFT, failing to report, losing a sensitive item (night vision goggles) and not reporting it, failing to follow direct orders, lacking in personal hygiene, administrative reduction in rank, and not properly wearing the military uniform.

2.  An APFT card showing two record failures.  The applicant failed the run on 19 December 2010 and failed the run and push-ups on 18 October 2011.   

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided no additional documents.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

He is currently working steady employment.  


REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  

2.  Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases.

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.  By the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable characterization of service.  

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 feels that due to his service in Afghanistan he had problems adapting to service stateside.  However, before initiating discharge proceedings, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about his deficiencies which could lead to separation.  The command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory Soldier.  The evidence contained in the service record establishes the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies.  As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service.  Furthermore, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from his problems of adapting stateside after leaving Afghanistan through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other resources available to all Soldiers.  

5.  The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use 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.

6.  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.  

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:  23 April 2014       Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  2	No Change:  3
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	UOTH - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable
ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR 20130010711		

Page 5 of 5 pages



ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1