IN THE CASE OF:	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:	1 July 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130016995
___________________________________________________________________________

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 to upgrade the characterization of his service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, he was an excellent Soldier.  His chain of command acknowledged his hard work and outstanding performance by promoting from PFC to CPL, an achievement not easily earned.  He enlisted to receive college benefits and made sure he took advantage of the tuition assistance program while enlisted, but was unable to complete many classes due to extensive field exercises.  He couldn’t understand why other Soldiers within 2-1 AD were getting DUIs and failing urinalysis but were not receiving the same level of punishment.  He has never been in any type of trouble or violated any regulations.  The offense was a one-time mistake that he had to greatly pay for once reaching the civilian society when trying to get up on his feet.  He is working very hard but still struggling to meet ends meet.  He has owned up to his horrible mistake and wants to take advantage of the opportunity to improve his living and get an education as it is very difficult in today’s society to earn a decent salary without a degree. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	13 September 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	9 February 2012
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Paragraph 
			14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
	e.	Unit of assignment:	B Btry, 4-27 FA, 2-1 AD, Fort Bliss, TX
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	17 August 2009, 3 years, 17 weeks
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 5 months, 18 days
	h.	Total Service:	2 years, 5 months, 18 days
	i.	Time Lost:	5 days
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	13B10, Cannon Crewmember
	m.	GT Score:	NIF
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	None
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	NDSM; GWOTSM; NPDR; ASR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	NIF
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No



SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 August 2009, for a period of 3 years and 17 weeks.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B10, Cannon Crewmember.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  He completed 2 years, 5 months, and 18 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was digitally authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates that on 9 February 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, for misconduct (drug abuse), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKK and a reentry (RE) code of 4.  

3.  The applicant’s available record does not show any recorded actions under the UCMJ.  However, he was separated as a PV2/E-2 and the action that caused his reduction is not contained in the service record.

4.  On 6 February 2012, HQDA, 1st Armored Division and Fort Bliss, Fort Bliss, TX, Orders Number 037-0006, discharged the applicant from the Army, effective 9 February 2012.  

6.  The applicant's record shows as time lost of 5 days, which may indicate he was absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 14 December 2011 through 18 December 2011.  However, there is no record available on the mode of return.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

Discharge orders.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a character reference memorandum, dated 4 November 2011 and three monthly counseling statements, dated 25 February 2011, 1 April 2011, and 28 April 2011.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none. 



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

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was digitally authenticated by the applicant's signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process.  

3.  The DD Form 214 also indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), by reason of misconduct (drug abuse), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The applicant's contentions about were carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service.  Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge.  

5.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record.

6.  The applicant contends that other Soldiers with similar or DUI offenses were not receiving the same level of punishment as his.  However, the method in which another Soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case.  Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. 

7.  The applicant contends that he had good service which included being an excellent Soldier with receiving a promotion that is not easily earned.  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.

8.  The applicant has expressed his desire for educational benefits and a decent salary.  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.

9.  Therefore, based on the available evidence and the government presumption of regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief.



SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review      Date:  1 July 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)		AR20130016995

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1