IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr.

      BOARD DATE:  	28 March 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130013788
___________________________________________________________________________

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

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was informed he was being discharge with a characterization of general, under honorable conditions.  He contends he is requesting an upgrade to obtain medical benefits, specifically mental health benefits.  He states he has never been the same after being admitted to the psychiatric ward at Fort Stewart, Georgia.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			22 July 2013
b. Discharge Received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				7 September 2000
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c,
JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				Battery B, 1-41st Field Artillery, Fort Stewart, 
GA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		2 April 1998/3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		2 years, 5 months, 6 days
h. Total Service:				2 years, 5 months, 6 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-2
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		13B10, Cannon Crewmember
m. GT Score:					NIF
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				None
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No
s. Performance Ratings:			NA
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 April 1998 for a period of 3 years.  He was 23 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  His record is void of any significant acts of achievement or valor.  He completed 2 years, 5 months, and 6 days of active duty service.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Stewart, Georgia.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 15 March 2000, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), misconduct (drug abuse), for wrongful use of cocaine, driving under the influence (DUI), and larceny. 

2.  On 17 March 2000, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army, waiver of further rehabilitative efforts and the applicant be separated with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

3.  On 20 March 2000, the battalion commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

4.  On 26 April 2000, the separating authority approved the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions.  

5. On 9 May 2000, the unit commander re-notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense).  In addition the applicant was notified that the battalion and brigade commanders recommended he be separated with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was informed he was entitled to an administrative separation board.

6.  On 17 May 2000, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested his case be considered by an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  On 7 June 2000, the applicant made a handwritten note on his election of rights form indicating he initially waived his administrative separation board contingent upon his discharge with a characterization of general, under honorable conditions.

7.  On 30 June 2000, the applicant was notified to appear before a board of officers to convene on 17 July 2000.  There is no evidence in the available record of an administrative separation board being conducted.

8.  On 9 August 2000, the applicant unconditionally waived his right to an administrative separation board.

9.  On 24 August 2000, the separation authority approved the unconditional waiver request, waived further rehabilitation efforts, and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.

10.  The applicant was separated on 7 September 2000, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ, and an RE code of 3.    

11.  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, dated 7 Jan 1999, for wrongful use of cocaine and assault of SPC P by striking him with a closed fist.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $463 pay per month for two months, 45 days extra duty and restriction (FG).

2.  Six negative counseling statements dated 14 December 1998 through 
29 November 1999, for failure to report, positive urinalysis x 2 (981123 and 991107), speeding, DUI, suspension of on-post driving privileges, and notification of summary court-martial proceedings.

3.  DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 29 February 2000, reflects the applicant had a clear thinking process and was mentally responsible.
      
4.  DD Form 2329 (Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial), dated 17 December 1999, reflects the applicant participated in summary court-martial proceedings and was found guilty of violation of Article 121 of the UCMJ, larceny.
      
5.  A Department of the Army Report of Results of Trial, dated 17 December 1999, reflects the applicant was found guilty of larceny.  The sentence consisted of confinement for 30 days, reduction to the grade of E-1, and forfeiture of $639.

6.  DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 10 December 1999, reflects the applicant was charged with stealing money, of a value of less than $100, the property of PVT R and PFC H, deceiving them into purchasing baking soda instead of cocaine.  

7.  DA Form 4833 (Commander’s Report of Disciplinary or Administration), dated 
11 February 2000, reflects the applicant was found guilty in the municipal court of Richmond Hill, Georgia on 14 December 1999, of DUI and speeding.  The sentence consisted of a fine of $812.50; 12 months probation; 40 hours community service; attendance at a risk reduction program; and, attendance at a victim impact program class.  The speeding offense was merged with the DUI offense.

8.  A Military Police Report, dated 29 November 1999, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for DUI in a civilian court.
 
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 19 July 2013, a copy of his medical record dated 12 July 2013, his discharge order 242-0003, dated 29 August 2000, and a copy of his DD Form 214.


POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any in support of 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 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 misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general or a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by a FG Article 15, a summary court-martial, and numerous 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 he is requesting his upgrade to obtain medical benefits.  He states since his admittance in the psychiatric ward while stationed at Fort Stewart, he has never been the same.  However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  The record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication.  Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include medical benefits 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.  The 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:  28 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)		AR20130013788



Page 7 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1