IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	26 February 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130011169
___________________________________________________________________________

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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable.  The Board determined the reason for discharge and the RE code were both proper and equitable and voted not to change them.



      
      
      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 and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to rejoin the military.  The applicant contends that at the time of discharge he was going through a rough divorce at a young age.  He now understands that what he did was wrong and since his discharge he hasn't had any trouble with the law nor does he do drugs.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		17 June 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			29 December 2010
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter
      14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			C Trp, 3rd Sqd, 1st Cav Rgt, 3rd BCT, Fort Benning 						GA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	13 August 2008, 3 years and 18 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 4 months, 17 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 4 months, 17 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	19D10, Cavalry Scout
m. GT Score:				98
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (091008-100930)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, NDSM, ICM-w/CS, GWOTSM, ASR
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 13 August 2008, for a period of 3 years and     18 weeks.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and had a high school graduate.  His record indicates he served a period of combat in Iraq; received several awards to include the ARCOM; and achieved the rank of SPC/E-4.  He completed 2 years, 4 months, and 17 days of military service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 24 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 misconduct (serious offense).  Specifically for the following offenses:  

a. on divers occasions between (100401-100418) stole money of a value of about $3,000.00 the property of PV2 A.

b. conspiring with PV2 A.A. to commit larceny of private funds of a value of about $3,000.00 belonging to PV2 A, by covering up the larceny.

c. on or between (100418 and 100420) on divers occasions made a false official statement to SFC K.G. that he had no knowledge of where PV2 A's funds had been sent to; and made a false official statement to 1LT S. W. that PV 2 A's funds had been used to buy a laptop for his girlfriend.  As well as making a false official statement to SGT J. B. that PV2 A's funds had been used to buy a laptop for his girlfriend, which statements were totally false and was then known by him to be so false. 

d. on or about (100420) made a false official statement by signing a DA Form 2823 Sworn Statement, which was totally false and was then known by him to be false.

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 30 November 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and submitted 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.  On 10 December 2010, 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 29 December 2010, 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), with 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.  CID Report, dated 6 July 2010, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for conspiracy, making false official statement, larceny, and obstructing justice.

2.  A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 28 July 2010, which indicates the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceeding against him and that he was mentally responsible.  Also there was no clinical evidence to suggest that he does not have the capacity to understand the nature of the administrative actions he faced.

3.  Article 15, imposed on 29 August 2010, for conspiring with PFC A.A. to commit an offense under the UCMJ, to wit: larceny of private funds of a value of about $3,000.00 (100418), with intent to deceive made an official false statement to 1LT S.W., SFC K. G., and SGT J.B., with intent to deceive, signed an official document which was totally false (100420), and on divers occasions between (100401 to 100418) stole money of a value of about $3,000.00, the property of PFC AA.  Punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1 and forfeiture of  $723.00 pay per month for two months(FG).

4.  A counseling statement dated 20 April 2010 for lying to a commissioned officer, lying to a senior noncommissioned officer, lying to a noncommissioned officer, stealing money from a US financial institution. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293.

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 at the time of discharge he was going through a rough divorce at a young age.  The applicant's contention was noted; 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.  

5.  Furthermore, the record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

6.  The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to rejoin the military. 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. 

7.  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.   

8.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

9.  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: 26 February 2014   Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel: None

Board Vote:
Character Change:  3	No Change:  2
Reason Change:	0	No Change:  5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:		Yes
Change Characterization to:	Honorable
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)		AR20130011169



Page 6 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1