IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	9 May 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130011170
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the examiner’s 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 during his time in service he was having substance abuse issues and voluntarily submitted to rehabilitation for 30 days and he specifically mentioned that it may have been beneficial to try the drug Ritalin as it was used for Attention Deficit Disorder, but he was not acknowledged.  He served 3 years of his enlistment contract and received a general discharge a day before he was set to ETS.  After his discharge a mental health doctor examined him and his diagnosis determined the need to prescribe Ritalin 
to him.  Since he has been taking the medication he has vastly improved and has not abused alcohol.  His life is improving with the help of the medication that he requested originally prior to his discharge.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		17 June 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:			17 September 2008
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, 						JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			A Btry, 2-4 FA Bn, 214 Fires Bde, Fort Sill, OK 
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	20 September 2005, 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 11 months, 29 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 11 months, 29 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	13M10, MLRS/HIMARS Crew Member 
m. GT Score:				114
n. Education:				HS graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Korea (060206-070206)
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		AAM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR
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 20 September 2005, for a period of 3 years.  He was 20 years old at the time and a high school graduate.   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 Sill, OK.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 6 August 2008, 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  Receiving a General Officer memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) from COL L on 22 May 2008 for operating a vehicle while under the influence (DUI) on 4 February 2008. 

      b.  Being apprehended for DUI for the second time on 8 March 2008 while his driving privileges were revoked.
      
      c.  Failure to obey a lawful order given by COL B, by leaving post on 11 March 2008 and 4 July 2008 while his driving privileges were revoked.
      
      d.  Failure to obey a lawful order given by CPT F, by failing to call his platoon sergeant every two hours on the 28th and 29th of June 2008.
      
      e.  Making a false official statement to a 1SG on 30 June 2008, by saying that he did not have his  Platoon Sergeants phone number.
      
      f.  Failure to report to his appointed place of duty on 11 March 2008.  
      
      g.  Failure to report to his appointed place of duty on 27 June 2008.  

2.  Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 5 September 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general, under honorable conditions discharge and did not submit a statement in 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 12 September 2008, the separation authority approved the conditional waiver request and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 17 September 2008, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, 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 contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Two GOMORs dated 7 February 2008 and 22 May 2008 for DUI with allied documents.  The GOMOR dated 22 May 2008 was also for driving while his license was revoked.  

2.  Eight negative counseling statements dated between 4 February 2008 and 7 July 2008, for failing to repair x 2, failing to follow orders x 3, insubordination to a senior NCO, disrespecting a Commissioned Officer, physically controlling a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and being command referred into ASAP. 

3.  A Military Police Report dated 12 March 2008, which shows the applicant was a subject of investigation for a DUI, driving while his privileges were revoked and failing to stay in his lane.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 5 June 2013, a DD Form 214, and copies of his most recent college transcripts.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states he is attending college and works fulltime at a computer support desk. 

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.

ANALYST’S 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 two administrative GOMORs for DUI and several 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, in effect, that his untreated substance abuse issues contributed to his discharge from the Army.  However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any substance abuse issue or medical condition.  Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication.  

5.  The applicant contends that since leaving the Army he has been attending college and has been working full time continuously since.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  

6.  The applicant contends he served three years of his contract only to get a general discharge the day before he was set to ETS.  However, 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 applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service.  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 his 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.   

8.  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:  9 May 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)		AR20130011170



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1