IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	29 January 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130011924
___________________________________________________________________________

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 to his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his characterization of service was too harsh and will limit his opportunities in life.  He states he was inept in understanding the regulations affecting his discharge and was not provided assistance from his chain of command.  He contends his education benefits were denied due to the type of discharge and characterization he received.  An upgrade of his discharge would afford him the opportunity to use his skills as a healthcare specialist in the civilian sector.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			24 June 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:				5 June 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Patter of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter
14-12B, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				575th Medical Company (AS), Joint Base 
Lewis, McChord, WA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		27 May 2009/4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		3 years, 9 days
h. Total Service:				3 years, 9 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		68W10, Healthcare Specialist
m. GT Score:					123
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				None
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
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 27 May 2009 for a period of 4 years.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  His record is void of any significant acts of valor or achievement.  He completed 3 years and 9 days of active duty service.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 15 March 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. Specifically for:

     a.  A Company Grade (CG) Article 15 x 3, (100810, 110211, 111018), for wrongfully obtaining individual identifiable health information for personal use, driving with a suspended license, and failure to report x6 (110809, 110816, 110817 x 2, 110901, 110914).

     b.  Vacation of suspension, dated 4 November 2011, for failure to report x 2 (111021 and 111022).

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

3.  On 18 April 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did submit a statement in his own behalf.  The applicant’s record contains a statement, dated 24 February 2012, that stated, in effect, he would like to continue his military service.  He performed his duties to the degree of his training and possessed the knowledge and responsibilities expected of a junior Soldier.  He was competent in his military occupational specialty (MOS) 68W.  He never failed to complete any corrective training and accepted guidance, counseling, and corrective criticism from his superiors.  The applicant submitted a written request to make a personal appearance before the separation authority.  He also submitted a letter of support from Command Sergeant Major (CSM) J, dated 
5 March 2012.  CSM J, stated in effect, he recommended the applicant receive an honorable discharge instead of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He contended the applicant’s misconduct only consisted of multiple issues for being late for formation due to a loss of his vehicle and other family problems which had a negative effect on his performance.  He recommended the applicant be discharged under Chapter 14-12a, minor disciplinary infractions and receive an honorable discharge in order to use his educational benefits.

4.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  On 20 April 2012, the intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

5.  On 22 May 2012, the separation waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

6.  The applicant was separated on 5 June 2012, 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. 
7.  The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1  Article 15, dated 10 August 2010, for obtaining individually identifiable health information related to an individual for personal use by wrongfully contacting a patient through Facebook.  The punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days, restriction to the limits of the company area, dining/medical facility, and place of worship for 14 days (suspended) to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 23 August 2010 (CG). 

2.  Article 15, dated 11 February 2011, for driving his vehicle with a suspended license.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the pay grade E-2, 14 days extra duty and restriction (CG).  The applicant appealed the action on 11 February 2011, and his appeal was denied on 16 February 2011.

3.  Article 15, dated 18 October 2011, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 6 (110809, 110816, 110817 x 2, 110901, 110914).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the pay grade E-1 (suspended), to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 18 April 2012, forfeiture of $342 pay (suspended), to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 18 April 2012, 14 days extra duty (CG).  The applicant appealed the action on 18 October 2011, and his appeal was denied on 25 October 2011.

4.  DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 
4 November 2011, reflects the punishment imposed against the applicant on 18 October 2011, was vacated for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 2 (111021, 111022).
      
5.  Five negative counseling statements dated between 18 October 2011 and 4 November 2011, for initiation of administrative separation action, financial responsibility x 2, recoupment of basic allowance of housing (BAH), and missing formation.
      
6.  DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 16 November 2011, shows the applicant knew the difference between right and wrong and recommended a referral to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP).

7.  A memorandum, from Department of the Army, Joint Base Garrison, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, dated 7 November 2011, reflects the applicant was not eligible to receive Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Chapter 30 or the Army College Fund (ACF) and not eligible to receive a refund of monies reduced from basic pay, due to completing less than 24/26 months of active duty.  The applicant acknowledged his agreement with the pre-chapter separation education counseling by authenticating the memorandum with his signature. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 21 June 2013, with all listed enclosures.
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 3 Articles 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and five 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 an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill.  However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.

5.  The applicant contends he was not provided assistance from his chain of command or legal counsel in understanding his discharge.  However, the evidence of record shows the command provided the applicant with an election of rights regarding separation, which he acknowledged receiving on 18 April 2012.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel at that time and advised him on the contemplated separation and its effects.

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:  29 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)		AR20130011924



Page 7 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1