IN THE CASE OF:	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:	23 April 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130014345
___________________________________________________________________________

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 general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he requests of the Board to consider revising his discharge status from the Army.  He is not proud of how his Army service ended and takes full responsibility for the actions that resulted in his departure.  Since his discharge, he has taken steps to turn his life around.  He returned and completed his undergraduate degree in integrated social studies at a university.  Prior to joining the Army, his academic record at the university was mediocre, at best, with a GPA in the mid 2’s.  However, during his final year of undergraduate work his GPA was 3.8, which included being on the dean’s list on two occasions.  He attributes this to a renewed focus on his education and personal commitment to turn his life around.  After completing his undergraduate program, he decided to return to the university to obtain a Master’s Degree in special education so he could work with students with mild to moderate learning disabilities.  He was inspired to pursue this field because of his mother’s youngest sister, his aunt, who has Down’s Syndrome.  Despite her disabilities, his aunt was able to graduate from high school and support herself by working in the same job for over 25 years.  He wants to help others with disabilities achieve this same level of success by being productive members of society.  Revising his discharge status would help him reach his goal working with children and help them become successful.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	30 July 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	21 August 2009
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, 
			Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	HHC, 1st Bn, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 
			Fort Richardson, AK
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	25 June 2008, 4 years, 19 weeks
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	0 years, 10 months, 24 days
	h.	Total Service:	0 years, 10 months, 24 days
	i.	Time Lost:	93 days
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-3
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	11B10, Infantryman
	m.	GT Score:	112
	n.	Education:	Three years of college
	o.	Overseas Service:	Alaska
	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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 June 2008, for a period of 4 years and 19 weeks.  He was 24 years old at the time of entry and had three years of college.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B10, Infantryman.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  He completed 10 months and 24 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 12 August 2009, 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), specifically for receiving an Article 15 for abuse of illegal drugs and AWOL.  

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 13 August 2009, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and elected not to submit a statement on his own 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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  In an undated memorandum, 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 discharged from the Army on 21 August 2009, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3.    

6.  The applicant's record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) on three separation occasions for a total of 93 days of time lost:

	a.	during the period 12 January 2009 through 19 January 2009 - mode of return is not addressed in the records;
	b.	during the period 26 January 2009 through 29 January 2009 - mode of return is not addressed in the records; and
	c.	during the period 27 January 2009 through 20 April 2009 – records indicate he surrendered to military authorities.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  There is a positive urinalysis report contained in the record:  IO, Inspection - Other, 23 April 2009, marijuana.

2.  Article 15, dated 10 July 2009, for being AWOL (090112-090420) and wrongfully using marijuana (090323-090423).  The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $699 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction, (FG). 

3.  DA Form 4187, Personnel Action, dated 21 April 2009, indicates the applicant’s status changed from DFR to PDY.

4.  DA Form 4187, Personnel Action, dated 4 March 2009, indicates the applicant’s status changed from AWOL to DFR.

5.  DA Form 4187, Personnel Action, dated 5 March 2009, indicates the applicant’s status changed from PDY to AWOL.

6.  A negative counseling statement, dated 21 April 2009, for being officially reported AWOL; revoking pass privileges; and missing movement to a combat deployment with his unit.

7.  DD Form 458, Charge Sheet, indicates the applicant was charged with being AWOL 26 January 2009 through (date left blank) that was preferred on 5 March 2009.

8.  An MP Blotter Report dated 12 May 2009, which indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for a controlled substance violation, use of marijuana. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a self-authored statement; four letters of recommendation/character reference; and a cover letter for employment.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, since his discharge, he has taken steps to turn his life around.  He returned and completed his undergraduate degree in integrated social studies at a university.  After completing his undergraduate program, he decided to return to the university to obtain a Masters Degree in special education so he could work with students with mild to moderate learning disabilities.  

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 documents and issue 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 serious incidents 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 an Articles 15 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 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 he is not proud of how his Army service ended and takes full responsibility for the actions.  However, since his discharge, he renewed his focus on education and personal commitment to taking steps to turn his life around.  He returned and completed his undergraduate degree in integrated social studies at a university.  Prior to joining the Army, his academic record at the university was mediocre, at best, with a GPA in the mid 2’s; however, during his final year of undergraduate work his GPA was 3.8, including being on the dean’s list on two occasions.  After completing his undergraduate program, he continued toward obtaining a Master’s Degree in special education so he could work with students with mild to moderate learning disabilities.  Revising his discharge status would help him reach his goal working with children and help them become successful.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with 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 re-characterization 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 provide 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 previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

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

7.  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:  23 April 2014       Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

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

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)		AR20130014345

Page 2 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1