IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr.

      BOARD DATE:  	7 February 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130011780
___________________________________________________________________________

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 has insomnia which resulted in him missing a lot of physical training formations and not being at his appointed place of duty.  He received multiple counseling statements because of his insomnia.  The Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) has awarded him a fifty percent disability rating for his condition.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			26 June 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				22 December 2010
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter
14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				689th Rapid Port Opening Element, 597th 
Transportation Brigade, Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, Fort Eustis, VA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		6 August 2008/ 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		2 years, 4 months, 17 days
h. Total Service:				3 years, 7 months, 18 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			USAR, (070505-080805), NIF
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		88H10, Cargo Specialist
m. GT Score:					89
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				Haiti (100127-100315)
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			NDSM, GWOTSM, HSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		NA
s. Performance Ratings:			No
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 August 2008 for a period of 3 years.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Haiti and his record is void of any significant acts of valor or achievement.  He completed 3 years, 7 months, and 18 days of military service.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Eustis, Virginia.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On an unknown date, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. Specifically for:

     a.  Failure to report x 22 between 22 January 2009 and 4 October 2010, in violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ.

     b.  Disrespect of a NCO and failure to obey orders and regulations x 5 (090828, 091123, 100225, 100329, 101005).

2.  Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 2 December 2010, the applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel, and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  However, the record does not contain a rebuttal statement from the applicant.  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.  As a note, the applicant was discharged in December 2010; however, he dated his election of rights form 2 December 2012.  This is seen as a harmless error.

4.  On 13 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 separated on 22 December 2010, 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.  Multiple negative counseling statements for failure to report to appointed place of duty x 20, insubordinate conduct toward an NCO x 4, dereliction of duty, failure to obey a order or regulation, noncompliance with procedural rules, provoking speech or gestures x 8, late to formation, failure to shave while on duty, no auto insurance, unsatisfactory performance x 3, failure to secure equipment, and notification of corrective training.

2.  DD Form 2708, dated 11 January 2010, reflect the applicant was detained for driving while license suspended, reckless driving, and driving with expired tags.

3.  Article 15, dated 17 November 2009, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 4 (090909, 090914, 091016x2).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the pay grade of E-2 and 14 days extra duty and restriction (Field Grade (FG).

4.  Article 15, dated 22 September 2010, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 4 (100712, 100805, 100731x2).  The applicant was only found guilty of the two specifications that occurred on 12 July 2010 and 5 August 2010.  The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $400 pay and 21 days extra duty (FG).

5.  Article 15, dated 20 April 2010, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 6 (100324x2, 100325, 100329, 100401, 100408), derelict in the performance of his duties (100325), disrespect in deportment and language to an NCO (100329), and wrongfully using provoking gestures (100329).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the pay grade of E-1, forfeiture of $724 pay for one month, and 14 days extra duty and restriction (FG).

6.  DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 6 October 2010, indicated the applicant had normal behavior, a clear thinking process, and was able to distinguish right from wrong.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 21 June 2013, a DD Form 214, and a undated document showing he received a fifty percent rating based on a service connected medical condition.

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 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 pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by three Article 15s for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and multiple 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 insomnia contributed to his discharge from the Army.  However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any 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 the VA has granted him a service connected disability for insomnia.  However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  The applicant did not provide any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.

6.  The 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:  7 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)		AR20130011780



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1