IN THE CASE OF:	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:	19 March 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130012676
___________________________________________________________________________

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 to upgrade the characterization of his service from under other than honorable to general, under honorable conditions or honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he feels his discharge should be changed due to his good conduct since his discharge.  Other than traffic violations, he has no criminal record.  He is a single parent with custody of his son.  He is a correctional officer for a state Department of Corrections.  An upgrade will allow him to become a county deputy sheriff.  The actions that led to his discharge show that he was young and immature at the time.  He feels those actions should not outweigh his actions since his discharge.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	8 July 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	7 October 1998
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ 
			RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	HHC, 3-502nd Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne 
			Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, KY
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	1 August 1997, 4 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 2 months, 7 days
	h.	Total Service:	7 years, 3 months, 19 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	USAR (910619-920602) / NA (NIF)
			ADT    (920603-921001) / UNC
			USAR (921002-940314) / NIF
			RA      (940315-970731) / HD
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-5
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	91B10, Medical Sergeant
	m.	GT Score:	NIF
	n.	Education:	HS graduate 
	o.	Overseas Service:	Egypt, Korea (NIF)
	p.	Combat Service:	NIF
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	AAM-3; AGCM; NDSM; NPDR; ASR; OSR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No, waived
	s.	Performance Ratings:	Yes
	t.	Counseling Statements:	NIF
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 March 1994, and reenlisted on 1 August 1997, for a period of 4 years.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  There is no record of his overseas service.  He earned three AAM awards.  He completed 4 years, 6 months, and 23 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record shows that on 22 July 1998, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense, for wrongfully using cocaine, an illegal drug.

2.  The unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.

3.  On 24 July 1998, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and elected to submit a statement on his behalf (NIF).  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 the separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 22 September 1998, the General Court Martial Convening Authority directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions and that he is reduced to the lowest enlisted grade, PV1/E-1.

5.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 7 October 1998, as a SPC/E-4, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3. 

6.  The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  There are no counseling statements or UCMJ actions in the record.  However, he was discharged as a SPC/E-4, although the separation authority directed reducing him to the lowest enlisted grade, PV1/E-1.  In addition, he was a SGT/E-5 according to the GOMOR and NCOER with a date of rank of 18 April 1997; the action that reduced him to SPC/E-4, effective 2 June 1998, is not available in his record (the commander’s forwarding recommendation indicates a nonjudicial punishment being part of his separation packet; however, it is not currently available).

2.  A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 10 December 1997, for driving while intoxicated.

3.  One NCOER covering the period of April 1997 to March 1998, an “Annual” report:  The applicant was rated as “Fully Capable” and received 2/1 from the senior rater. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided none.  

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, he is employed as a correctional officer for a state Department of Corrections.  

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, 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 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.  The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a non-commissioned officer.  The applicant, as an NCO, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies.  By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by a GOMOR and records reflecting an Article 15 action.

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 he has been employed as a state correctional officer and wants to become a county deputy sheriff.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  

5.  The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provides a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings.  The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate if previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

6.  The applicant contends that he was young and immature at the time of the discharge.  The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 

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

8.  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:  Record Review     Date:  19 March 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)		AR20130012676

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1