IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	4 April 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130011951
___________________________________________________________________________

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 from under other than honorable conditions to general, under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, because during the time he was assigned to his last unit, he felt that he was being discriminated against because of his race, and lack of skills.  He addressed this with his chain of command to the best of his abilities for assistance but the situation became worse.  Before the unit deployed he knew that he had no trust with the company, and he didn’t know if one of his fellow Soldiers would turn against him, so he left the unit.   

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		27 June 2013
b. Discharge received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			17 September 2011
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (AWOL), AR 635-200, paragraph 							14-12c(1), JKD, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HHC, 2-28th Inf Bn, 172 Inf Bde Vilseck, Germany 
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:  	9 June 2009, 6 years, 24 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:  	2 years, 3 months, 9 days
h. Total Service:			1 year, 8 months, 10 days
i. Time Lost:				209 days AWOL (100713-110211) 
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic
m. GT Score:				108
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Germany
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, ASR, 
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		No
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 June 2009, for a period of 6 years and 24 weeks.  He was 18 years old at the time and a high school graduate.  The applicant served almost two years of active duty and did not receive any significant awards or achievements for valor.  At the time his discharge proceeding were initiated, he was serving at Vilseck, Germany.  


SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 12 July 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(1), by reason of commission of a serious offense; specifically for being found guilty of all charges at a summary Courts-Martial, held on 14 June 2011, for three counts of being AWOL and receiving a Article 15 for four counts of FTR (100603).   

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

3.  On 25 July 2011, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with 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 an, other than honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 9 September 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 17 September 2011, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(1), for misconduct (AWOL), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKD and an RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant's record shows he was AWOL on two separate occasions during the period (100713-110211) and (110419-110420) for a total of 209 days.  On both occasions he surrendered and returned to military control.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 2 July 2010, failure to report (FTR) on four occasions (100415, 100422, 100426, 100506).  The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $378.00 for one month (suspended until 101231), extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG).

2.  Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial with allied documents, held on 14 June 2011 and approved and adjudged on 26 July 2011.  The applicant was found guilty of all charges and specifications.  The sentence which was adjudged was a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $1096.00 pay for one month, and confinement for 30 days.  

3.  Record of Supplementary Action Under article 15, UCMJ (DA Form 2627-2), dated 
2 August 2010, vacating the suspension of the punishment of forfeiture of $378.00 pay per month for one month, dated 2 July 2010.  The vacation was based on him being FTR on 
26 June 2010.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 24 June 2013, and a DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None 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, the documents and issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  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 serious misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge.  His service was marred by an Article 15 and a summary court-martial for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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

5.  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:  4 April 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)		AR20130011951



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1