IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	23 June 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130017217
___________________________________________________________________________

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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was young at the time of his discharge.  He states he had just returned from Iraq and reclassified to another Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) and had no one to help him with his transition.  He contends he was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and was attending counseling at the time of his misconduct.  However, he states his chain of command did not provide any assistance with his adjustment to his medications or counseling.  He constantly felt bullied in his unit and was made an example of for other members of his unit.  He contends upon separation, he was threatened with UCMJ action if he did not sign his DD Form 214.  He states his request for an upgrade of his discharge would allow him to further his education and use the Montgomery GI Bill.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			16 September 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				27 January 2005
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(1),
JKD, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				Headquarters and Company A, 551st Signal
Battalion, Fort Gordon, GA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		4 December 2002/4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		2 years, 1 month, 24 days
h. Total Service:				4 years, 10 months, 29 days
i. Time Lost:					12 days
j. Previous Discharges:			DEP, (000228-000307), NA
RA, (000308-021203), HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		19D10, Cavalry Scout
m. GT Score:					120
n. Education:					GED
o. Overseas Service:				SWA, Bosnia
p. Combat Service:				Iraq, (030121-030826)
q. Decorations/Awards:			AAM, NDSM, ASR, GWOTSM, PUCA, AGCM
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		NA
s. Performance Ratings:			NA
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 March 2000, for a period of 3 years.  His DD Form 214 indicates he entered active duty on 14 March 2000.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and had a general equivalency diploma (GED).  He reenlisted on 4 December 2002, for a period of 3 years.  His record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement.  He completed 4 years, 10 months, and 29 days of active duty service.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  The applicant was discharged as a Private (PV2)/E-2.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 15 December 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b and c, for a pattern of misconduct and misconduct (serious offense).  Specifically for:

     a.  being AWOL from 9 November 2004 until 15 November 2004.

     b.  being disrespectful to an NCO on 28 October 2004.

     c.  failing to report x 7 occasions (040823, 041022, 041025, 041027, 041028, 041029, and 041101).

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 4 January 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in 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 19 January 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 27 January 2005, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(1), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKD, and an RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant's record shows he was AWOL during the period 9 November 2004 through 15 November 2004.  His mode of return is unknown.  As a note, his DD Form 214 reflects the period of absence between 26 July 2004 through 30 July 2004, was not chargeable.  



EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 24 November 2004, for being AWOL from 9-15 November 2004, being disrespectful toward SSG S on 28 October 2004, and failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on six occasions (041022, 041025, 041027, 041028, 041029, and 041101).  The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $312 pay per month for one month, and extra duty and restriction for 14 days.

2.  Article 15, dated 6 August 2004, for being AWOL for the period 26 July 2004 through 
30 July 2004.  The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-3, (suspended), to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 1 February 2005, forfeiture of $370 pay per month for one month, and extra duty and restriction for 14 days.

3.  DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 24 August 2004, reflects the punishment of reduction to the grade of E-3 was vacated on 
6 August 2004, because the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit 0530 accountability formation on 23 August 2004.

4.  DA form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 9 December 2004, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible, with a clear and normal thought process, and had no psychiatric disease of defect that warranted disposition through medical channels.

5.  Eight negative counseling statements dated between 30 July 2004 and 10 November 2004, for being AWOL on three occasions (040730, 040823, and 041110), for insubordinate conduct towards an NCO, and failing to report on six occasions (041022, 041022, 041025, 041027, and 041110).  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided an online application, dated 12 September 2013, a DD Form 214 for the period under review, assignment instructions dated 7 August 2000, Orders 337-400, DA Headquarter, 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) and Fort Stewart, an Enlisted Record Brief, dated 20 September 2002, a PERSTEMPO deployment history out-processing verification covering the period 7 August 2000 through 9 January 2004, an AAM Certificate and DA Form 638, a DA Form 4187, dated 1 October 2002, Orders Number 167-14, dated 21 June 2013, for Army Good Conduct Medal, (first award), and a leave and earnings statement, dated 1-31 October 2000.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any in support of 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 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.  It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge by receiving two Article 15s and eight 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 an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill.  However, the Army Review Board Agency does not grant a change in discharge in order to access veteran benefits which include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.

5.  The applicant contends he has been diagnosed with PTSD and was attending counseling.  However, the service record contains no evidence of a PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  

6.  The applicant contends he received no help or assistance from his chain of command.  However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counselings and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.  Further, 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.  

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:  Records Review      Date:  23 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)		AR20130017217



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1