IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	17 January 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130017343
___________________________________________________________________________

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 his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he desires an upgrade to receive a private government contracting job which requires an honorable discharge.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			19 September 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				9 May 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200,
							Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				1B Co, 2d BSTB, 2d BCT, 101st
						Airborne Div (AA), Ft. Campbell, KY
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		20 November 2007, 6 Years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		4 Years, 5 Months, 20 Days
h. Total Service:				6 Years, 6 Months, 28 Days
i. Time Lost:					AWOL, 120301-120306
j. Previous Discharges:			RA/051006-071119/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-5
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		11B10, Infantryman
m. GT Score:					88
n. Education:					HS Grad
o. Overseas Service:				Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:				Iraq (070808-081024); Afghanistan
							(100603-110301)
q. Decorations/Awards:			ARCOM (2), AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM,
							NATOMDL, ICMw/CS, ACMw/CS, NPDR, 								ASR, OSR (2d), EIB
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No	
s. Performance Ratings:			Yes
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 October 2005, and reenlisted on 20 November 2007 for a period of 6 years.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He earned two ARCOMs and the AAM.  He completed 6 years,6 months, and 28 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 27 April 2012, the commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for commission of  serious offenses.  He failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty; he absented himself from his unit; he made a false official statement to a noncommissioned (NCO); and, wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife.

2.  Based on the above serious offenses, the commander recommended a general, under honorable condition discharge.

3.  On 29 April 2012, the applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel, 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 commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  In an undated memorandum, the separation directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 

5.  The applicant was separated on 9 May 2012, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ, and an RE code of 3.           

6.  The applicant's record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) during the period of 
1 March -6 March 2012.  Mode of return is unknown.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 20 April 2011, wrongfully have sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife on 8 March 2011.  The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-4 (suspended until 2 July 2011), forfeiture of $1,224.00 pay per month for two months (suspended until 2 July 2011), and extra duty for 45 days, (FG).

2.  Article 15, dated 6 April 2012, AWOL for 1-6 March 2012; failed to go to work call on
23 February 2012; and, made a false official statement to an NCO on 1 March 2012.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of $1,181.00 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction, (FG). 

3.  Five negative counseling statements for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty and to an appointment, debt avoidance, failure to follow a lawful order, and lying to an NCO.  
      
4.  Three NCOERs covering the period 17 June 2009 to 29 February 2012.  He received two negative reports. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

DD Form 293 and DD Form 214

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None listed  

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, 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.  By the commission of serious offenses, 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 15s.
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 will allow him to obtain a private government contracting job.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

5.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  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:  17 January 2014     Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  NA 

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)		AR20130017343



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1