IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	9 April 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130012387
___________________________________________________________________________

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 characterization from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he is requesting an upgrade in order to better his life.  His discharge is reflecting negative on his background and making it hard to get a job and further his education.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		5 July 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:			11 August 2011
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, 						JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HHD, 56th Multi- Functional Medical Battalion, Joint 						Base Lewis-McChord, WA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	25 June 2008, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 1 month, 16 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 1 month, 16 days
i. Time Lost:				2 days
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	25U10, Signal Support Specialist
m. GT Score:				95
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
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 25 June 2008 for a period of 4 years.  He was 17 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 Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  On 27 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 14-12b, by reason of pattern of misconduct; specifically for:

	a.  Receiving a FG 15 for violating Article 91 and 92 (090529)
	b.  Receiving a CG Article 15 for violating Article 86 (091102)
	c.  2TR Civil Charge: Criminal Trespassing which led to Civilian Confinement
	Dropped (100809)
	d.  Receiving a CG Article 15 for violating Article 107 and 86 (110509)
	e.  Receiving a FG Article 15 for violating Article 91 x2 (110602)

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

3.  On 27 July 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and stated that he would submit a statement on his own behalf; however, he failed to do so in the allotted time.  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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  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 11 August 2011, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b for a Pattern of Misconduct, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA and an RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant’s record shows two days of lost time for civilian confinement (100810-100810).  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  A FG Article 15, dated 29 May 2009, for being disrespectful in language towards a NCO (090506) and disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer not to drive his car to the motorpool (090506).  His punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $699.00 pay for two months, suspended, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction.

2.  On 10 June 2009, the suspension of the punishment for forfeiture of pay for two months  imposed on 29 May 2009 was vacated based on the applicant’s offense of failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (090602).    

3.  A Summarized Article 15, dated 2 November 2009, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (090802, 090803, and 091022).  His punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty and restitution.   



4.  A CG Article 15, dated 9 May 2011, for intent to deceive, signed an official document, application for Army Emergency Relief (AER) financial assistance form (110408), and for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (110425 x 2).  His punishment consisted of reduction to PFC (E-3) and 14 days of extra duty and restriction.  

5.  A FG Article 15, dated 10 June 2011, for disobeying a lawful order from two NCOs (110518 x 2) and was disrespectful in language and deportment towards a NCO (110518).  His punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, suspended, and 45 days of extra duty.

6.  On 26 July 2011, the suspension of the punishment for reduction in rank imposed on 
10 June 2011 was vacated based on the applicant’s offense of leaving from his appointed place of duty and remaining absent over two hours, staff duty, on 22 July 2011.  

2.  Numerous negative counseling statements dated 19 March 2009 through 24 June 2011, for failing to report, disrespect to a NCO, failing to follow orders, failing to follow corrective training instructions, driving without a license, tardiness, Chapter 14 notification, sworn statements, substandard performance, with intent to deceive signing an AER financial form, and marital counseling.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

A DD Form 293 and 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 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 four Articles 15 and two vacation of suspension 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 his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

4.  The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would help him better his life and further his education.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Further, 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.  Records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.

6.  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 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)		AR20130012387



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1