IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	4 June 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130016356
___________________________________________________________________________

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 from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he desires another chance to serve his country again.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		26 August 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			19 October 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct , AR 635-200, Chapter 14, 						paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HQS, Brigade Special Troops Battalion (Rear) 							(Provisional), 1st Brigade Combat Team (Rear) 						(Provisional), Fort Bragg, NC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	21 June 2011, 3 years and 21 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 3 months, 29 days
h. Total Service:			1 year, 3 months, 29 days
i. Time Lost:				7 days
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	91D10, Power Generation Equipment Repairer
m. GT Score:				92
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		No
t. Counseling Statements:		No
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 June 2011, for a period of 3 years and 21 weeks.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a HS Graduate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91D10, Power Generation Equipment Repairer.  His record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements; and he achieved the rank of PFC/E-3.  He was serving at Fort Bragg, NC when his discharge was initiated.




SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 10 September 2012, 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 a pattern of misconduct for failing to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 7 (120504, 120510, 120515, 120516, 120308, 120316, 120321).

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

3.  On 13 September 2012, the applicant consulted 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. 

4.  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 19 October 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant’s record of service indicates 7 days of time lost for being AWOL from           19 September 2012 until his return on 26 September 2012.  However, this period is not annotated on the applicant’s DD Form 214 block 29 dates of time lost during this period.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  An Article 15, dated 22 May 2012, for without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 4 (120504, 120510, 120515, 120516); the punishment consisted of forfeiture of $389 pay, extra duty for 14 days and restriction for 14 days, (CG).

2.  An Article 15, dated 3 April 2012, for without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, x 3 (120308, 120316, 120321); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $389 pay, extra duty for 14 days and restriction for 14 days, (CG).

3.  The record of evidence contains two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated                 20 September 2012 and 26 September 2012, which indicated the AWOL and present for duty dates.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293.
POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any information with 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.

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 record, the issues and 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.  By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by two Articles 15, and two DA Forms 4187.

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 desires another chance to serve his country again. Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3.  An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist.  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 

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

6.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends 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)		AR20130016356



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1