IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr.

      BOARD DATE:  	17 January 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130011055
___________________________________________________________________________

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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was not treated fairly or well taken care of as a Soldier.  He contends he was discharged due to being under the influence of medication received from a doctor while driving a motor vehicle.  He was told by the doctor that the medication would not make him drowsy or cause dizziness, however, he was apprehended by civilian police authorities.  His chain of command did not wait until his court date before discharging him from the service and never let him explain what happened.  Since being discharged from the military he has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which he contributes to his deployment.  He would like an upgrade of his discharge so he can use his Montgomery GI Bill and would like to serve again if possible.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			12 June 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				4 April 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200,
Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				Alpha Company, 703rd Brigade Support 
Battalion, Fort Stewart, GA 
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		10 February 2009/4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		3 years, 1 month, 25 days
h. Total Service:				3 years, 1 month, 25 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist
m. GT Score:					NIF
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				SWA
p. Combat Service:				Iraq (100706-110612)
q. Decorations/Awards:			ICM-2CS, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM,
ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		NA
s. Performance Ratings:			NA
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 February 2009, for a period of 4 years.  He was 24 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Iraq and earned two AAM’s.  He completed 3 years, 1 month, and 25 days of active duty service.  When discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Stewart, Georgia.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  The applicant was not available for signature.

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates that on 4 April 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKQ and a reentry (RE) code of 3.  

3.  The applicant’s available record does not show any unauthorized absences or time lost.  

4.  On 27 March 2012, Department of the Army, Headquarters, Third Infantry Division and Fort Stewart, Fort Stewart, Georgia, Orders Number 087-0012, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 4 April 2012.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Discharge Orders Number 087-0012, dated 27 March 2012, Department of the Army, Headquarters, Third Infantry Division and Fort Stewart, Fort Stewart, Georgia.
 
2.  General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 7 April 2010.  The Commander, Headquarters, Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield, Fort Stewart, Georgia, reprimanded the applicant for driving under the influence of alcohol.  As a result, he was cited with driving under the influence and failure to use due care while operating a vehicle.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided the following in support of his application:

     a.  DD Form 293 with a self-authored statement, dated 10 June 2013. 

     b.  DD Form 214, not authenticated by the applicant.
     c.  An undated and unsigned memorandum to COL S from the applicant.

     d.  DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ), dated
2 December 2011, without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 4, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ (CG).  The applicant was found guilty of all offenses.  The specific punishment was not provided nor found in the applicant’s official record.

     e.  Two DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated between 11 October 2011 and 17 October 2011, for failure to report and failure to obey an order or regulation x 3.

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 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 applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was not authenticated by the applicant's signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process.  

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 was treated unfairly and not well taken care of as a Soldier.
However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.  Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge.  Further, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service.  

5.  The applicant contends the Veterans Administration has granted him a service connected disability for PTSD.  However, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully.

6.  Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge.

7.  The applicant’s record confirms his discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army’s standards of 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.  His record of service was marred by an Article 15, three negative counseling statements and a GOMOR.

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:  17 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)		AR20130011055



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1