IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr.

      BOARD DATE:  	16 April 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130013086
___________________________________________________________________________

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, he has been a productive citizen since his discharge from the Army.  He needs an upgrade to receive educational benefits to further his education and employment opportunities; due to his discharge he struggles to stay gainfully employed.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date: 		16 July 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			1 June 2011
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14 						paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			Mid-Atlantic District Veterinary Command, Joint Base 						Langley-Eustis, VA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	8 September 2005, 4 years/it appears the applicant 						reenlisted; however the immediate reenlistment 						contract is not contained in the available record.  						The Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) shows his expiration 						of term of service (ETS) as (121001).		
g. Current Enlistment Service:	5 years, 8 months, 24 days 
h. Total Service:			5 years, 8 months, 24 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	68R10, Veterinary Food Inspection Specialist
m. GT Score:				102
n. Education:				GED
o. Overseas Service:			Japan
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		No
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 September 2005, for a period of 4 years.  He was 24 years old at the time of entry with a GED Certificate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 68R10, Veterinary Food Inspection Specialist.  The immediate reenlistment contract is not contained in the available record.  His record does not show any combat service, but he earned an AGCM; and achieved the rank of SPC/E-4.  He was serving at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, VA when his discharge was initiated.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 10 May 2011, the unit commander (LTC, M), 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.  Specifically for the following offenses:  

     a.  physically assaulting his spouse (090428)

     b.  engaging in inappropriate conduct with a woman not his wife, by rubbing his hand on PFC P. K’s thigh, holding her hand, hugging her, and attempting to kiss her without her permission (100919)

     c.  disobeying a lawful order and being derelict in the performance of his duties (110207)

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

3.  On 10 May 2011, the applicant consulted 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.

4.  The separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge on an unknown date, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

5.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 1 June 2011, 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, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences, time lost or any actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  The record contains an administrative letter of reprimand, dated 1 December 2010 for engaging in inappropriate and unprofessional conduct.

2.  A US Navy Criminal Investigation Division Report, dated 13 October 2010 (three pages) which indicated the applicant was under investigation for sexual assault.

3.  The record contains an emergency protection order-family abuse; dated 28 April 2009 indicating the applicant assaulted a family member.

4.  The record also contains a Memorandum, Family Advocacy Case Review Committee (CRC) incident determination indicating the incidents met the criteria for physical abuse and the determination would be entered into a DA Central Registry database. 

5.  He received six negative counseling statements, dated between 22 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 for being notified of a no contact order, investigation results, being recommended for UCMJ action, failing to obey an order, wrongful sexual contact, being barred to reenlistment, failing to keep the chain of command informed, disobeying an order, failing o be at his appointed place of duty, and notification of initiation of separation action.

6.  An approved Bar to Reenlistment, dated 28 December 2010.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, and a Department of Veterans Affairs letter.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any information with 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 issues and documents 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 a letter of reprimand, a Navy Criminal Investigation Report, an emergency protection order-family abuse, a family advocacy incident review, six negative counseling statements, and a bar to reenlistment.

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 a productive citizen since his discharge from the Army.  The applicant is to be commended for his effort.  However, this contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor was it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued.  

5.  The applicant further contends he needs an upgrade to receive educational benefits to further his education and employment opportunities; due to his discharge he struggles to stay gainfully employed.  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.

6.  Further, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

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:  Records Review       Date:  16 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)		AR20130013086



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1