IN THE CASE OF:	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:	14 May 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130014376
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the examiner’s 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, his request is based on his dedicated, unwavering loyalty, and honorable service in the U.S. Army for over four and a half years, including a combat deployment to Afghanistan.  His discharge was unjustified because it was based on one single incident from 54 flawless months of zero disciplinary actions against him.  He earned an AGCM at three years and always remained loyal to his commanding officers.  He wants to serve his country to the best of his ability and continue a proud heritage of respect and professionalism to all future employers.  However, with the current discharge status, he cannot achieve this goal.  He wants to show loyalty to this country as his strength and motivation.  His commanding officers seeing his dedication to duties remaining flawless and placing his service before himself placed their rank on the line, knowing that he would continue to accomplish the missions.  His discharge orders shocked his command as he was ready to continue the fight and move on after his punishment.  Many higher ranking officers and sergeants wrote character statements on his behalf encouraging his leadership to allow him to continue his career.  Some positive character statements were submitted without his knowledge.  During his service, he received only positive monthly counseling statements.  His many years of loyal, honest, dedicated service to his country should not be discredited by a GD due to one isolated situation.  The final verdict of his discharge was unjust and irreversible.  He served his punishment and deserves to show his proud service to the Army.  This discharge separated him from something he truly loved doing and resulted in a lifetime of punishment.  He included with his application numerous awards reflecting that he was highly decorated; however, showing only a small reflection of his dedication and commitment in the U.S. Army. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	5 August 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	10 April 2013
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Serious Offense) AR 635-200, 
			Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	158th Gen Spt Bn (R) (P), 12th Combat Aviation 
			Brigade, Katterbach Army Heliport, Germany
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	17 September 2008, 6 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	4 years, 6 months, 24 days 
	h.	Total Service:	4 years, 6 months, 24 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	15T10, UH-60 Helicopter Repairer
	m.	GT Score:	97
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA, Germany
	p.	Combat Service:	Afghanistan (100707-110629)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	AM-2; ARCOM-V; ARCOM; AAM; AGCM; 
			NDSM; ACM-CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR; NATO 
			MDL; CAB
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	NIF
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 September 2008, for a period of 6 years.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 15T10, UH-60 Helicopter Repairer.  He served in Afghanistan and Germany.  He earned the following awards: two AM, two ARCOM (including one with V Device), and an AAM.  He completed 4 years, 6 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 9 January 2013, 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 misconduct (serious offense), specifically for being found guilty of assault consummated by battery, and drunk and disorderly conduct in a summary court-martial.

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 24 January 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and submitted a statement on his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended retaining the applicant in the Army.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended retaining the applicant in the Army.  

4.  On 18 February 2013, 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 10 April 2013, 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 service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  


EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

There is a summary court-martial packet in the applicant’s record, which indicates he was found guilty on 23 October 2012, assault consummated by a battery (111230), and for being drunk and disorderly (111230).  On 26 October 2012, his sentence consisting of forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for one month and confinement for 10 days was approved.  The Offer to Plead Guilty signed on 3 October 2013, is not available in the record.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided with his application, four character reference statements that are also part of his separation file; ARCOM with Valor certificate, dated 12 October 2010; AGCM certificate; two Air Medal certificates; CAB orders, dated 12 October 2010; ARCOM certificate, dated 27 January 2011; AAM certificate, dated 1 September 2011; and certificate of achievement, dated 1 May 2009.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none.  

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.



ANALYST’S 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 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 serious incident of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by a summary court-martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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 serious 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 he had good service which included receiving only positive counseling statements, a combat deployment to Afghanistan, and numerous awards, he describes as being highly decorated, but only a small reflection of his dedication and commitment of his service in the U.S. Army before all others.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the serious incidents of misconduct or by the documented action under a summary court-martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

6.  The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s performance and character, which were considered by the separation authority during the discharge process.  However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the separation authority’s decision.  As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity.

7.  The applicant has expressed his desire to continue the proud heritage of respect and professionalism by serving and to all his future employers.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Moreover, at the time of discharge the applicant was assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 3.  Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3.  There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code.  An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist.  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate.

8.  The applicant contends the final verdict of his discharge was unjust and irreversible, and his discharge resulted in a lifetime of punishment.  However, 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.  Accordingly, the records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

9.  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:  14 May 2014       Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

Board Vote:
Character Change:  2	No Change:  3
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)		AR20130014376

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1