IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	28 February 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130011139
___________________________________________________________________________

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 characterization from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the Army failed to accurately identify and treat his mental health issues (bi-polar/schizophrenia).  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		13 June 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:			21 October 1999
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, 						JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HHSB, 3rd Battalion, 6th Field Artillery, 10th Mountain 					Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, NY
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	1 October 1997, 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 21 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 21 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-2
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	13F10, Fire Support Specialist
m. GT Score:				103
n. Education:				GED
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes	
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 October 1997 for a period of 3 years.  He was 18 years old at the time and had a GED.   The applicant’s record does not show any significant achievements or acts of valor.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Drum, NY.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  On 4 October 1999, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of pattern of misconduct; specifically for:

	a.  being convicted by a summary court-martial for disobeying a lawful order, two counts of disobeying a lawful general regulation, being drunk on duty, and wrongful previous overindulgence
	b.  receiving a Company Grade Article 15 for larceny
	c.  receiving a Field Grade Article 15 for failure to report, dereliction of duty, disobeying a lawful written order, and false official statement and 
	d.  receiving numerous negative counseling statements.

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and informed the applicant of his rights.

3.  On 5 October 1999, the applicant consulted 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.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 7 October 1999, 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 separated on 21 October 1999, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b for a Pattern of Misconduct, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA and an RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant’s record does not show any time lost.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  A Company Grade Article 15, dated 5 November 1998, for stealing seven compact discs (CDs), the value of $88.89, the property of AAFES post exchange (980908).  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 and forfeiture of pay in the amount of $216.00 (both suspended), and 14 days extra duty.  

2.  A Military Police Report, dated 25 May 1999, for leaving the scene of an accident, making a false official statement, driving a vehicle without a license, and unsafe starting of a vehicle.  

3.  A Field Grade Article 15, dated 25 June 1999, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (990513), derelict in the performance of his duties by failing to stay awake (990607), failing to obey a lawful order by having a female in his room without signing her in at the battalion staff duty desk (990623), and with intent to deceive provided a false statement to a SPC about having a driver’s license (990614).  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 and forfeiture of pay in the amount of $479.00 (suspended).

4.  Numerous counseling statements covering the period 13 May 1999 through 21 July 1999, for  disobeying a lawful order from an NCO and officer, providing a false statement to a NCO, attempting to enter a range with a lock and loaded M-4 rifle, having a female in the barracks room without signing her in at the battalion staff duty desk, late for formations, receiving an Article 15, failing to report, failing to follow instructions and regulations, disrespect towards an NCO, failing to follow an order from the battalion commander and CSM, sleeping on duty, violating restriction, notification of intent to separate, and insubordinate conduct towards an NCO.

5.  A Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 July 1999.  The applicant was diagnosed with 
occupational problems, cannabis and alcohol abuse, and having a grade one ankle sprain.

6.  A one page summary court-martial sheet, dated 7 September 1999.  The sheet does not show the charges or the punishment imposed; however, in the commander’s recommendation, it shows the applicant was charge with disobeying a lawful order, two counts of disobeying a lawful general regulation, being drunk on duty, and wrongful previous overindulgence.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

None were provided with the application.

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 his military records and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient 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 repeated incidents of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s service was marred by a summary court-martial; two Articles 15 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 his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

4.  The applicant contends the Army failed to accurately identify and treat his mental health issues (bi-polar/schizophrenia).  The record shows that on 8 July 1999, the applicant was diagnosed by a competent medical authority, with having occupational problems, cannabis and alcohol abuse, and having a grade one ankle sprain.  Therefore, the applicant’s contention is unsupported.  

5.  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.  

6.  Records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.

7.  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:  28 February 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)		AR20130011139



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1