IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	24 January 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130012183
___________________________________________________________________________

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 general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge should be upgrade based on his lack of help from his chain of command.  The applicant contends his chain of command wanted him out; therefore they used prior counseling statements from other NCOs against him.  He wanted to move back into the barracks once his wife left, but his chain of command never did anything until it was too late.  His wife (at the time) and child left him, which left him very depressed.  He holds himself responsible for his actions; however he believes with the right guidance, he would have stayed on the right track and made better decisions.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		3 June 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			10 January 2001
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14						paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			C Co, 203rd FSB, Fort Benning, GA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	28 May 1997, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 7 months, 13 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 7 months, 13 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist
m. GT Score:				89
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		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 28 May 1997, for a period of 4 years.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and high school graduate.  His record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements.  He completed 3 years, 7 months, and 13 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 27 November 2000, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct.

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.

3.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit 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 27 November 2000, 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 10 January 2001, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) 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.  Article 15, imposed on 29 August 2000, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 3 (000328, 000621, and 000623).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $311.00 pay per month for one month, and extra duty for 14 days (CG).

2.  Article 15, imposed on 21 September 2000, for the wrongful use of marijuana between (000619 and 000719).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $502.00 per month for two months, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG).

3.  Several negative counseling statements, dated between 2 March 2000 and 9 August 2000, for his job performance during the month of February 2000, being late for formation, failure to follow instructions, being dishonest, missing formation, failure to have sufficient funds to defray expenses while on leave, financial obligation, dereliction of duty, lying to a senior noncommissioned officer, not being at his appointed place of duty, and recommendation for a Company Grade Article 15.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided an online application, a copy of his separation packet, and a copy of his DD Form 214 for the period of service under review.

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 pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by two Article 15s 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 his discharge should be upgrade based because he received no help from his chain of command.  However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.

5.  Furthermore, before initiating discharge proceedings, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about his deficiencies which could lead to separation.  The command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory Soldier.  The evidence contained in the service record establishes the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies.  As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service.

6.  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.  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:  24 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)		AR20130012183



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1