IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	11 December 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130016200
___________________________________________________________________________

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 discharge from under other than honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he served his country honorably in Afghanistan.  When he came back home, he was suffering in silence from PTSD issues.  His wife had left him while deployed and his grandfather passed.  He had tried to see his grandfather and was denied leave.  He grandfather was like a father figure in his life (closer than his dad).  In retrospective thinking, he wishes he could have done more to go through his command.  Since returning from Afghanistan, he has been unable to think straight.  He has been battling some issues and needs help.  He regrets his decisions and wishes he could have been more flexible and his first sergeant could have been more compassionate.  He is trying to better himself and wants to do right things but this discharge is haunting him.  He needs help and treatment to overcome the combat-related issues he is now facing.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		30 August 2013
b. Discharge received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			5 March  2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (AWOL), AR 635-200, paragraph 							14-12c(1), JKD, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HHC, 3rd Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Brigade 						Combat Team, Fort Campbell, KY
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:  	4 December 2010, 2 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:  	1 year, 3 months, 1 day
h. Total Service:			2 years, 7 months, 0 days
i. Time Lost:				201 days (110420-110525 (35), 110628-110731 (33) 						111014-111127 (44), 111129-111221 (22), and 						111228-120305 (67)  
j. Previous Discharges:		ARNG (080628-080722), UNC									RA (090112-101203), HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	11B10, Infantryman	
m. GT Score:				104
n. Education:				11 years
o. Overseas Service:			SWA
p. Combat Service:			Afghanistan (100204-110205)
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO-						MDL, CIB
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant joined the Army National Guard on 28 June 2008 before enlisting in the Regular Army on 12 January 2009, for a period of 2 years and 16 weeks.  He was 19 years old at the time and had completed 11 years of high school.  The applicant reenlisted on 4 December 2010 for two years.  The applicant served two years and 7 months, which included a combat tour in Afghanistan and earned a CAB.  He was serving at Fort Campbell, KY at the time his discharge proceeding were initiated.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(1), by reason of misconduct; specifically for:

	a.  AWOL (110628-110725)
	b.  AWOL (110420-110526)
	c.  Failed to report to his appointed place of duty on four occasions (110412, 110411,    	    	     110407, 110406) 
	d.  Possessed a synthetic substance in violation of a lawful general regulation (110816)

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 3 October 2011, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 24 January 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 5 March 2012, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(1), for misconduct (AWOL), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKD and an RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant’s record contains five periods of lost time for being AWOL and military confinement for a total of 201 days (110420-110525 (35), 110628-110731 (33), 111014-111127 (44), 111129-111221, military confinement (22), and 111228-120305 (67).  The modes of return are unknown.  



EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  A DD Form 458, Charge Sheet, with the following charges:

Charge 1:
        Specification 1:  AWOL (110628-1100725)
        Specification 2:  AWOL (110420-110526)
        Specification 3:  Failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the appointed time (110412)
        Specification 4:  Failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the appointed time (110411)
        Specification 5:  Failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the appointed time (110407)
        Specification 6:  Failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the appointed time (110406)

Charge 2:
        Specification 1:  Wrongfully used a synthetic substance for the purpose of inducing intoxication, excitement, and stupefaction of the central nervous system (110816)
        Specification 2:  Wrongfully possessed a synthetic substance for the purpose of inducing intoxication, excitement, and stupefaction of the central nervous system (110816)

2.  Summary Court Martial proceedings, dated 29 November 2011.  The applicant was found guilty of all of the above listed charges.  The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction to E-1, confinement for 30 days and a forfeiture of $978.00 pay per month for one month. 

3.  A letter of reprimand, dated 25 February 2010, for negligently discharging his M249 machine gun (100214) while deployed in Iraq. 

4.  A Company Grade Article 15, dated 18 June 2010, for negligently discharging his M249 machine gun (100304) while deployed in Iraq.  His punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, suspended, and extra duty for 14 days.  

5.  A negative counseling statement that indicated the applicant was being counseled for being in debt to the government.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

A DD Form 293, a memorandum from the Department of Veterans Affairs describing an incident while the applicant served in Afghanistan, a copy of an obituary from the news paper, and a DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were 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.

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, the documents and issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  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 serious misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge.  His service was marred by an Article 15 and a summary court-martial for multiple 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 his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

4.  The applicant contends when he came back home, he was suffering in silence from PTSD issues, his wife had left him while deployed and his grandfather passed.  He had tried to see his grandfather and was denied leave.  In retrospective thinking, he wishes he could have done more to go through his command.  However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  

5.  The applicant contends since returning from Afghanistan, he had been unable to think straight.  He has been battling some issues and needs help.  However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that his medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  The record shows that on 14 December 2011, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong.  It appears the applicant’s chain of command determined that he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation.  Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully.

6.  The applicant contends he is trying to better himself and wants to do right things but this discharge is haunting him.  He needs help and treatment to overcome the combat-related issues he is now facing.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Further, 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.

7.  The applicant contends that he had served his country honorably in Afghanistan.  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 repeated incidents of misconduct.  

8.  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:  11 December 2013     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)		AR20130016200



Page 7 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1