IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	7 May 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130014951
___________________________________________________________________________

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 an upgrade of his discharge characterization from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was discriminated against by a noncommissioned officer (NCO) and was given two Articles 15 for the same incident.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		13 August 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:			25 March 2003
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, 						JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HSC, 52d Engineer Combat Battalion (Heavy), Fort 						Carson, CO
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	RA, 22 August 2001, 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 7 months, 4 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 6 months, 8 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		ARNG (990917-991107), NA									OIADT (991108-000317), UNC			`						ARNG (990318-010821), NA									(Concurrent Service)
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	88M10, Motor Transport Operator
m. GT Score:				93
n. Education:				GED
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		AGCM, NDSM, AFRM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes	
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the ARNG on 17 September 1999 for a period of eight years.  He was 19 years old at the time and had a high school equivalency (GED).  The applicant’s record does not show any significant achievements or acts of valor.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Carson, CO.



SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  On 4 March 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of a pattern of misconduct; specifically for his numerous acts of misconduct.

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

3.  On 4 March 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement on his behalf (NIF).  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 of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 13 March 2003, 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 separated on 25 March 2003, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b for a pattern of misconduct, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA and an RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  CG Article 15, dated 29 August 2002, for failing to report to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (020619) and making and uttering to AAFES certain checks on 
3 September 2003, (check #338, dated 1 July 2002, in the amount of $9.37; check #385, dated  2 July 2002, in the amount of $16.90; check #466, dated 8 July 2002, in the amount of $8.58; check #410, dated 12 July 2002, in the amount of $9.06; and check #412, dated 14 July 2002, in the amount of $9.56, and did thereafter dishonorably fail to place sufficient funds in the Armed Forces Bank for payment of such checks.  In block #4 of the Article 15, shows the Article 15 was not executed (no punishment administered). 

2.  FG Article 15, dated 27 January 2003, for failing to report to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (020904) and making and uttering to AAFES certain checks on 3 September 2003, (check #338, dated 1 July 2002, in the amount of $9.37; check #385, dated  2 July 2002, in the amount of $16.90; check #466, dated 8 July 2002 in the amount of $8.58; check #410, dated 12 July 2002, in the amount of $9.06; and check #412, dated 14 July 2002, in the amount of $9.56, and did thereafter dishonorably fail to place sufficient funds in the Armed Forces Bank for payment of such checks.  His punishment consisted of reduction to 
E-1, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $575.00 pay per month for two months (suspended), 
45 days of extra duty and restriction. 

3.  Numerous negative counseling statements covering the period 20 August 2002 through
6 January 2003, for disobeying a direct order, failing to follow a direct order, indebtness, failing to report, not to use his debit or check card, no to use internet services, no writing check, violation of check card privileges, and chapter 14-12b notification.

4.  A hospital memorandum, dated 26 December 2002, showing the applicant was admitted   for mental health concerns.  

5.  Two Mental Status Evaluations, dated 6 January 2003 and 30 January 2003.  The first evaluation diagnosed the applicant as having a bipolar II disorder and the second diagnosis showed the applicant met the retention standards prescribed in Chapter 3, AR 40-50 1 and found no psychiatric disease or defect that warranted disposition through medical channels. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

A DD Form 293, DD Form 214, an undated Mental Status Evaluation showing the applicant complained about being harassed and mistreated by his squad leader (doctor recommended reassignment), two Articles 15, the commander’s notification memorandum, and a character reference letter from a chaplain.  

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None provided with the 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.

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 his military records and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient 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 repeated incidents of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s service was marred by two Articles 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and several negative counseling statements.

3.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

4.  The applicant contends he was given two Articles 15 for the same incident.  A review of the CG and FG Article 15, showing the charges are identical for the making and uttering bad checks; however, there is a new failure to report to his appointed place of duty on 4 September 2002.  In addition, the punishment for the CG Article 15 was administered.  Therefore, 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.  

5.  The applicant contends that he was discriminated against by a noncommissioned officer (NCO).  The applicant’s contentions are noted; however, he did not provide and proof of reporting to his chain of command that he was being harassed or mistreated.  In addition, 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.  The evidence contained in the service record establishes the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies.  As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service.

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:  7 May 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)		AR20130014951



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1