IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	13 March 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130011033
___________________________________________________________________________

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 charged with violation of Article 120, UCMJ, engaging in an indecent act.  The reason for this request is while he was serving, he made a bad decision that cost him his career in the military.  He let one bad decision affect the total outcome of his career.  Since being out, he has learned that you are responsible for your actions and must think everything thoroughly.  Even though it’s just “one bad decision,” one bad decision is too many.  If downrange and as a leader, you don’t have time to make a bad decision.  Bad decision making is what costs people their lives.  He would like the opportunity to serve his country again.  As you read the attached letters, you will find out that he is a good person.  He was a good Soldier and tried his very best every day.  If he is able to re-enlist, he will not make the same mistake again. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		14 June 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			5 May 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, 14-12c 						JKQ, RE-3        
e. Unit of assignment:			HHD, 43d Signal Battalion, APO AE 09014
f. Enlistment Date/Term:		24 March 2009, 5 years, 34 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 1 month, 12 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 1 month, 12 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	25B10, IT Specialist
m. GT Score:				90
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Germany
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, ASUA, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		None	
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 March 2009, for a period of 5 years and 34 weeks.  He was 19 years old at the time of his enlistment and a high school graduate.  His record shows he was awarded an AAM.  He was serving in Heidelberg, Germany, when his discharge was initiated.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The record shows that on 7 March 2012, the battalion commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), specifically for committing an indecent act in the female latrine of Slapshots Bar on Patton Barracks in Heidelberg, Germany on 18 June 2011.  Also, on 19 June 2011, when he was originally questioned, he made two false official statements to CID Investigators concerning the events of 18 June 2011.  He admitted to making those false statements when later questioned by CID Investigators on 27 June 2011.

2.  Based on the above misconduct the battalion commander recommended an honorable discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.  

3.  On 9 March 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected to submit a statement on his own behalf (NIF).  

4.  On 23 March 2012, 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 on 5 May 2012, for misconduct (serious offense), under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, with an SPD code of JKQ and reentry code of 3.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  The record is void of any UCMJ actions or counseling statements; however, the commander’s recommendation memorandum states the applicant was given a CG Article 15 on 21 April 2011, for wrongfully fleeing the scene of an accident.  The applicant’s punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, suspended.  Of note, the recommendation also shows he was reduced to the grade of E-2, but doesn’t state why.

2.  A CID Report, dated 21 June 2011, for the applicant’s alleged misconduct.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

A DD Form 293, DD Form 214, three character reference letters, and an AAM.  

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were listed by the applicant.


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 service record, the document 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 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 committing an indecent act and making two false official statements to CID Investigators, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting an honorable discharge.  

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 let one bad decision affect the total outcome of his career.  Even though it’s just “one bad decision,” one bad decision is too many.  Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  

5.  The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service.  However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3.  There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code.  An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist.  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 

6.  The applicant contends that he was a good Soldier.  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 documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

7.  The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s performance.  They all recognize his good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant’s chain of command.  As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity.

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:  Record Review      Date:  13 March 2014      Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

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 RE Code to:		NA
Grade Restoration to:		NA
Change Authority for Separation:	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)		AR20130011033



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1