IN THE CASE OF:	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:	31 January 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130015878
___________________________________________________________________________

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 was provided an option for an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He thought the decision for not receiving an honorable would be left to his commander.  His request for an upgrade is so that he may receive his school benefits and use his Post 9/11 GI Bill.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	26 August 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	12 May 2012
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	AR 135-178 (Per separation file, Unsatisfactory 
			Participation, Chapter 13)
	e.	Unit of assignment:	2/802nd Ord Co (AMMO), Forest Park, GA
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	9 November 2007, 6 years (8-year MSO)
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 4 months, 13 days
	h.	Total Service:	4 years, 6 months, 4 days
	i.	Time Lost:	NIF
	j.	Previous Discharges:	USAR (071109-080102) / NA
			ADT (080103-080522) / UNC
			USAR (080523-091114) / NA
			AD (Mob) (091115-101229) / HD
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	89B10, Ammunition Specialist
	m.	GT Score:	102
	n.	Education:	GED
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA
	p.	Combat Service:	Afghanistan (091223-101113)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	AAM; NDSM; ACM-CS; GWOTSM; AFRM-M DEV 
			NATO ASM; NATO MDL; ASR; OSR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No, contingency waiver
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	Yes
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The applicant enlisted in the US Army Reserve on 9 November 2007, for a period of 8 years of military service obligation, 6 years of which he would serve in the Reserve Component of the Service.  He was 23 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED).  He served in Afghanistan.  He earned an AAM.  He completed 4 years, 6 months, and 4 days of active duty and reserve service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on 14 February 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 135-178, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, for failing to attend at least one scheduled training assemblies with his unit and failing to provide a valid excuse for his absences, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights via certified mail to his last known address (120214).

2.  The unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.

3.  On 14 February 2012, the applicant waived consulting with legal counsel, indicated he understood 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 of the separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

4.  On 27 April 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

5.  The record contains documentation that shows the unit contacted the applicant by certified mail on several occasions regarding unexcused absences and he refused to come in, as instructed.

6.  The applicant was separated on 12 May 2012, under Army Regulation 135-178, Chapter 13, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Three separate memoranda, dated 28 November 2011, 25 January 2012 and 7 February 2012, subject: Letter of Instructions – Unexcused Absence, addressed to the applicant are self-explanatory and each have certified mail certificates and sworn affidavit of service by mail.

2.  A negative counseling statement, dated 3 March 2012, for failing to attend scheduled battle assemblies for November 2011, January 2012, and February 2012.


EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided DD Form 214, dated 29 December 2010, and his discharge orders, dated 7 May 2012.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none.   

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 135-178 governs procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army Reserve.  Chapter 13 provides in pertinent part, that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant.  Army Regulation 135-91 states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills acrue during a 1 year period and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in— the Soldier’s refusal to comply with orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification that the Soldier has failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed.  Discharge action may be taken when the Soldier cannot be located or is absent in the hands of civil authorities in accordance with the provisions of AR 135-91, paragraph 2-18, and Chapter 3, section IV, of AR 135–178.   

2.  Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.  

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 document 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 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 his refusal to participate in unit drills, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  

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 that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill.  However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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 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 and an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate.  

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:  31 January 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)		AR20130015878

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1