IN THE CASE OF:	Mr.

      BOARD DATE:	4 June 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130016251
___________________________________________________________________________

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, he seeks an upgrade to allow access to education benefits to allow him to better take care of his family.  He cites issues which detracted from his performance and asserts he had every intention of giving the Army his all and that he outperformed his peers.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	30 August 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	9 November 2006
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-
			12b, JKA, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	B Btry, 1st Bn, 78th FA, Fort Sill, OK
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	12 November 2003, 3 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 11 months, 25 days
	h.	Total Service:	2 years, 11 months, 25 days
	i.	Time Lost:	3 days
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-3
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	13W10, Field Artillery Meteorological Crewmember
			13P10, Multiple Launch Rocket System Operations/ 
			Fire Direction Specialist
	m.	GT Score:	100
	n.	Education:	GED
	o.	Overseas Service:	Korea
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	AAM; NDSM; ASR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	Yes
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No



SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 November 2003, for a period of 3 years.  He was 18 years old and had a high school equivalency (GED).  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialties (MOSs) 13W10, Field Artillery Meteorological Crewmember and 13P10, Multiple Launch Rocket System Operations/Fire Direction Specialist.  He served in Korea.  He earned an AAM.  He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 25 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 16 October 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct (serious offense), specifically for the following misconduct:  

	a.	receiving a CG Article 15 (060918), for failing to be at his appointed place of duty;
	b.	receiving a FG Article 15 (060928), for failing to be at his appointed place of duty and 	wrongfully using marijuana;
	c.	being AWOL (060909-060911); and 
	d.	being cited for driving under the influence with a BAC level of .14 percent.

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

3.  On 24 October 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit a statement on his own 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 27 October 2006, 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 9 November 2006, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3. 

6.  The applicant's record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 9 September 2006 through 11 September 2006.  The mode of his return is not available in the record.



EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  There is a positive urinalysis report contained in the record: IR, Inspection, Random, 5 September 2006, marijuana.

2.  The unit commander’s forwarding memorandum, dated 16 October 2006, outlines the following record of nonjudicial punishments; however, the actual records are not available:

	a.	Article 15, dated 28 September 2006, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty and wrongfully using marijuana.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $636 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty, and 45 days of restriction (suspended), (FG).

	b.	Article 15, dated 18 September 2006, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $333, 14 days of extra duty, and 14 days of restriction, (CG).

3.  Three negative counseling statements, dated between 28 August 2006 and 12 September 2006, for failing to follow Army Regulations; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; blatantly disregarding Army Policy; leaving his appointed place of duty without authority; and testing positive for marijuana.

4.  A Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 21 September 2006, for driving under the influence of alcohol.

5.  An MP Report, dated 15 September 2006, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for driving under the influence of alcohol. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided his father’s death certificate, dated 24 January 2005.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, he had a business to support requiring additional education. 

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 document 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 pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by two Article 15 actions for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a memorandum of reprimand, and 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 applicant contends that the death of his father, being worried and wanting to be with his grieving mother, and without any viable discharge affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged.  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 pattern of misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  

5.  The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill and enhance employment opportunities.  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.

6.  The applicant contends that he had good service which included outperforming his peers.  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 or by the negative counseling statements and memorandum of reprimand, and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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

8.  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:  Record Review     Date:  4 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)		AR20130016251

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1