IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	12 March 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130016548
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s quality of his service to include his combat service and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.




      
      
      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 that his discharge be upgraded to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he made a mistake by leaving PLDC without authorization.  His intent then was not to become an NCO at that time because he had recently gotten married, just returned home from a year deployment in Iraq and had misguided christian religious beliefs.  He was an excellent Soldier who was always looking at being the best and meeting or exceeding the standards.  The mistake he made is a regretful one which he has carried for nine years now.  He is 31 years old now and has talked with his wife about this regret and painful burden.  He loves his country and he will always love the Army.  He is looking to change his discharge not for any benefits but because he would like to rejoin the military as a National Guardsman.  He is approaching the threshold of the age cutoff to rejoin.  This is something he needs to do.  He visited his deceased grandfather’s grave and felt the dishonor in his heart.  His grandfather was a Korean War Veteran, so he is requesting to have his discharge changed to make things right. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		9 September 2013
b. Discharge received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			30 July 2004
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Unsatisfactory Performance, AR 635-200, Chapter 						13, JHJ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			Delta Company, 801st Main Support Battalion, 101st 						Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, KY	
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:  	20 August 2003, 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:  	11 months, 10 days
h. Total Service:			4 years, 1 month, 3 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (000628-030819), HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	52D10, Power Generator Equipment Repairer
m. GT Score:				94
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			SWA
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (030227-040220)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR 						OSR-2
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			Yes, 7 November 2007


SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 June 2000 for a period of 4 years.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He reenlisted on 20 August 2003 for three years.  He served a combat tour of duty in Iraq in 2003.  He earned an ARCOM and an AGCM and completed 4 years, 1 month, and 3 days of total active duty service.  He was serving at Fort Campbell, KY, when his discharge was initiated.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The applicant’s service record shows that on 12 July 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance specifically for failing the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC) at Fort Knox, Kentucky by leaving without authority.

2.  The unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.  

3.  On 20 July 2004, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 21 July 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  It is unknown if the applicant was transferred to the US Army Reserve Control Group.

5.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 30 July 2004, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  Two counseling statements, dated 1 and 2 June 2004, for violation of administrative policies, violation of Article 92, violation of Article 86a-3, and leaving PLDC.

2.  DA Form 1059, dated 1 June 2004, showing the applicant failed to achieve course standards. The applicant was dismissed due to leaving the academy area without permission and was considered AWOL.     

3.  A Field Grade Article 15, dated 22 June 2004, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (040528).  The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $793.00 pay, suspended, and 45 days extra duty.    



EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

The applicant provided an online DD Form 293, a self-authored statement, and DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were provided by the applicant.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY  

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  

2.  Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge, and a narrative reason change, was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the documents 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 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.  By the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable characterization of service.  

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 he made a mistake by leaving PLDC without authorization.  His intent then was not to become an NCO at that time because he had recently gotten married, just returned home from a year deployment in Iraq and had misguided christian religious beliefs.  The applicant’s contentions are noted; however, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.  

5.  The Soldier contends he was an excellent Soldier who was always looking at being the best and meeting or exceeding the standards.  The mistake he made is a regretful one which he has carried for nine years now.  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.

6.  The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service.  He would like to get rid of the dishonor in his heart and make things right.  However, 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.  There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code.  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. 

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:  Personal Appearance     Date:  12 March 2014     Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  None

DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE

1.  The applicant submitted no additional documents or contentions.

2.  In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing.



Board Vote:
Character  	Change:  3	No Change:  2
Reason	Change:  1	No Change:  4
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:		Yes
Change Characterization to:	Honorable
Change Reason to:			No Change
Change RE Code to:		NA
Grade Restoration to:		NA
Change Authority for Separation:	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)		AR20130016548



Page 5 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1