IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	20 June 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130015947
___________________________________________________________________________

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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was discharged for a driving under the influence (DUI) charge, however, the charge was dropped and he was cited for reckless driving instead.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			29 August 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				30 November 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200
Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				A Company, 2-502nd Infantry Regiment (Rear)
(Provisional), Fort Campbell, KY
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		22 September 2009/4 years 17 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:		3 years, 2 months, 9 days
h. Total Service:				3 years, 2 months, 9 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		11B10, Infantryman
m. GT Score:					114
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				SWA
p. Combat Service:				Afghanistan (100603-110528)
q. Decorations/Awards:			ACM-CS, VUA, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR 
NATO MDL, CIB, EIB
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		NA
s. Performance Ratings:			NA
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 September 2009, for a period of 4 years and 17 weeks.  He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Afghanistan.  He completed 3 years, 2 months, and 9 days of active duty service.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.



SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 28 September 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense).  Specifically, for wrongfully DUI on 10 December 2011, and 15 July 2012.

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 3 October 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected to submit a statement on his own behalf.  In his rebuttal statement, the applicant accepted full responsibility for his actions.  He stated he knew his actions were unlawful and unjust to the military way of life and should not go unpunished.  He contended the incidents were an eye-opening experience and he wanted to remain in the military.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The applicant’s chain of command reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 15 October 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 30 November 2012, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ, 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.  General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 1 August 2012, for DUI in Tennessee on 10 December 2011 and 15 July 2012.  
      
2.  Three counseling statements dated 10 December 2011, 16 July 2012, 11 September 2012, for DUI on two occasions and obligations pending separation.
      
3.  Two Clarksville Police Department Incident Reports, dated 10 December 2011, and 15 July 2012, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for DUI.

4.  DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 24 August 2012, reflects the applicant had no obvious impairments and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong.  The applicant had a negative screening for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI).  He was diagnosed with a phase of life or life circumstance problem.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 18 July 2013, a DD Form 214 covering the period under review, and a Order of Probation from the State of Tennessee, dated 17 July 2013.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any in support of his 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.

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 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.  The applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge by the misconduct.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by a GOMOR and three negative counseling statements.

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

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.  

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:  20 June 2014        Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  No

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)		AR20130015947



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1