IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	13 March 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130019406
___________________________________________________________________________

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 discharge from general under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 60 months of service with no other adverse actions.  Also he was discharged without a through medical examination, left the Army with a category 3 hearing and was not thoroughly examined for PTSD. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		28 October 2013
b. Discharge received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			27 December 2011
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, 						JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			Rear Detachment, 2d Battalion, 2d Infantry Regiment, 					Fort Knox, KY
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	22 October 2009, 4 years 		
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 2 months, 5 days
h. Total Service:			5 years, 3 months, 5 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (060923-091021), HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l.  Military Occupational Specialty:	11C10, Indirect Fire Infantry
m. GT Score:				98
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			SWA, Hawaii
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (071206-090226)
q. Decorations/Awards:		AAM, NDSM, ICM-w/CS-2, GWOTSM, NPDR, ASR, 						OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		None
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 September 2006, for a period of 3 years and 16 weeks.  He was 20 years old at the time of entry and was a high school graduate.  He reenlisted on 22 October 2009 for a period of 4 years.  His record shows he was awarded an AAM and served a combat tour in Iraq in 2008.



SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The applicant’s record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army.  However, the evidence of record shows the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The record also contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature and the separation authority’s discharge memorandum.  He was discharged as a PVT/E-1.

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for pattern of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The DD Form 214 shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKA and a reentry (RE) code of 3.  

3.  The applicant’s record available does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

There are no counseling statements or UCMJ actions in the record.  However, he was discharged as a PVT/E-1; the action that reduced him in rank is not available in his record.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, DD Form 214, a chronological record of medical care, an Army Registry Transcript, and a DA Form 1059, Service School Academic Report.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were provided with the 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.

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 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 applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature and the separation authority’s discharge memorandum approving the discharge.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the presumption of government regularity shall prevail in the discharge process.  

3.  The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b by reason of pattern of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The applicant's contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 60 months of service with no other adverse actions.  Also he was discharged without a through medical examination, left the Army with a category 3 hearing and was not thoroughly examined for PTSD.  However, it is not possible to determine if these contentions have merit because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown.  The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence (i.e. discharge packet) sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration.  

5.  There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  There is no evidence in the available record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support his contention.

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

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Record Review     Date:  13 March 2014     Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

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 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)		AR20130019406



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1