IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	10 June 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20140002780
___________________________________________________________________________

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

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he would like an upgrade of his discharge for employment purposes.  He performed his duties well and started drinking after his wife passed.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			7 February 2014
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				17 December 2004
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c,
JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				Company B, 232nd Medical Battalion, Fort Sam
Houston, TX
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		2 June 2004, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		6 months, 16 days
h. Total Service:				6 months, 16 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-2
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		None
m. GT Score:					113
n. Education:					GED
o. Overseas Service:				None
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			None
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No
s. Performance Ratings:			None
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 June 2004, for a period of 4 years.  He was 24 years old at the time of entry and had a GED.  He required a moral waiver at the time of enlistment which was approved on 18 December 2003.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievements.  He completed 6 months and 16 days of active duty service. 



SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 7 December 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b. Specifically for:

	a.  Receiving two Field Grade Article 15’s for violating the alcohol policy twice.
	b.  Being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer on two separate occasions. 
	c.  Disobeying a lawful order and disorderly conduct.

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

3.  On 9 December 2004, 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 13 December 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 17 December 2004, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Misconduct-commission of a serious offense with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ, and an RE code of 3.         

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 26 October 2004, failed to obey a lawful order issued by a colonel; by drinking alcohol while in IET status (041013), disobeyed a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (041013), disrespectful in deportment and language toward a noncommissioned officer (041013).  The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $596.00 pay per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG) 

2.  Article 15, dated 1 December 2004, disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer (041108), failed to obey a lawful order issued by a colonel (041108), drunk and disorderly (041108), extra duty and restriction for 15 days (FG)
      
3.  Five negative counseling statements dated between 17 October 2004 and 18 November 2004, for disrespecting a noncommissioned officer, failing to obey orders or regulations, disobeying a commissioned officer, being informed that he was being considered for administrative separation from the Army, disrespecting a senior non commissioned, failing to obey a lawful order, inappropriate language and gestures directed toward a senior non commissioned officer, conduct unbecoming a Soldier and failing to comply as directed, Article 91, disrespecting a non commissioned officer, and Article 92, failing to follow a order, alleged violation of TRADOC 350-6 and BDE, BN and Company policies on consumption of alcoholic beverages by an IET soldier, Article 117, provoking speech and gestures, and possibly being a high risk candidate for going AWOL or attempting suicide.
      
4.  A Military Police Report dated 7 November 2004, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for being drunk and disorderly, failing to obey general order-standards of conduct, unauthorized drinking while in a training status.    

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant did not provide any with the application.   

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any 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.




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 and the issue 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 misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by 2 Articles 15’s for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and several negative counseling statements and a Military Police Report of Investigation.

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 would like an upgrade of his discharge because he performed his duties well and started drinking after his wife passed.  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 as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct. 

5.  While the applicant may believe the passing of his wife was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.  

6.  The applicant further contends he would like an upgrade of his discharge for employment purposes.  The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

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: 10 June 2014     Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers:  No

DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE:

1.  The applicant submitted the following additional documents:

	a.  Character reference – 1 page
	b.  VA letters regarding the processing of claim – 2 pages
	c.  VA letter regarding denial of services from Veteran Service Org – 1 page

2.  The applicant presented no additional contentions.

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

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)		AR20140002780



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1