IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	25 April 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130014344
___________________________________________________________________________

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 he believes his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident with no other adverse action.  He was not given any other options to try to correct the mistake that ultimately led to his discharge.  Instead, he was forcefully discharged from the Army with the assistance of JAG.  He contends that at the time of his misconduct he was in a bad relationship.  Since his discharge he has found it very difficult to find good paying positions with the company he currently works for.  He has nothing but remorse for any and all actions he committed while in the Army and now asks that his discharge be upgraded so he can continue to become a successful person in his civilian life.  He is currently taking college courses to better himself.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		5 August 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			24 September 2002
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter
      14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			3d MP CO, Fort Stewart, GA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	18 July 2001, 5 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	0 years, 11 months, 2 days
h. Total Service:			0 years, 11 months, 2 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	95B10, Military Police
m. GT Score:				97
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, 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 18 July 2001, for a period of 5 years.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievements.  He completed 11 months and 2 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 7 August 2002, 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 (serious offense) for going AWOL (011220-020325) and for being seriously delinquent in his debts.

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a UOTHC discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.

3.  On 7 August 2002, 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 contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions, and did not submit a statement on his 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 an UOTHC discharge.  

4.  The separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of GD.

5.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 24 September 2002, with a characterization of service of GD under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3. 

6.  The applicant’s service record indicates 95 days of time lost for being AWOL from              20 December 2001 until his return on 25 March 2002.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) and a 4187-E which changed the applicant's duty status.

2.  A Military Police Report, dated 9 April 2002, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for criminal trespass.

3.  A negative counseling statements dated 12 April 2002, pertaining to his failure to report for duty and being AWOL.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states he is currently taking college courses to better himself. 

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 his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by his incident of going AWOL and a negative counseling statement.
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 the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his entire Army career.  Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  

5.  The applicant contends that at the time of his discharge he was in a toxic relationship.  However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  

6.  The applicant further contends that he was not given any other options to try to correct his mistake that led to his discharge.  Instead, he was forcefully discharged from the Army with the assistance of JAG.  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.  As the applicant did not conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service.  

7.  Additionally, 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.  

8.  The applicant expressed a desire for an upgrade of his discharge to help in his attempts to find better employment opportunities.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

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

10.  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:  25 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)		AR20130014344



Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1