IN THE CASE OF:	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:	10 June 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20140004249
___________________________________________________________________________

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

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his request for an upgrade would allow him to return to military service and serve in a critical MOS in the Army, and to receive educational and medical benefits.  He had matured and grown after being recommended for separation in August 2011—he improved in his accountability, integrity, and work ethics.  He has amended his relationship with his former spouse and are raising and providing for their daughter.  Since his discharge, he worked in part and full time positions as a diligent employee.  He is currently enrolled in a university and pursuing a bachelor’s degree in finance.  He has not been in any trouble.  He was never court-martialed for any violation of the UCMJ.  He worked as a junior analyst and reporter, and one such report was featured in the President’s daily brief.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	7 March 2014
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	19 January 2012
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Unsatisfactory Performance, AR 635-200, Chapter 
			13, JHJ, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	Co C, 741st MI Bn, Fort Meade, MD
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	17 November 2009, 4 years, 43 weeks
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 2 months, 3 days
	h.	Total Service:	2 years, 2 months, 3 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-3
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	35N10, Signal Intelligence Analyst
	m.	GT Score:	NIF
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	None
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	NIF
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 November 2009, for a period of 4 years and 43 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) 35N10, Signal Intelligence Analyst.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  He completed 2 years, 2 months, and 3 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 19 January 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JHJ and a reentry (RE) code of 3.  

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

4.  Discharge orders are not available.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

There are no counseling statements or UCMJ actions in the record.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided DD Form 214 for service under current review; three character reference statements (unsigned); supporting statement; university admissions letter, dated 12 February 2014; and enrollment activity confirmation letter, dated 18 February 2014.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, since his discharge, he worked in part and full time positions as a diligent employee, and he is currently enrolled in a university and pursuing a bachelor’s degree in finance.  

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  

2.  Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases.

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 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 the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process.  

3.  The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The applicant contends an upgrade would allow him to rejoin the Service, and receive educational and medical benefits.  However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3.  There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code.  An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist.  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate.  Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include medical and 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.  

5.  The applicant contends that he had good service which included becoming mature and improved in his integrity and work ethics, and being accountable.  While serving as a junior analyst and reporter, one of his reports was featured in the President’s daily brief.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and improving the quality of his service prior to his discharge proceeding were carefully considered.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge. 

6.  The applicant contends that since his discharge, he worked in part and full time positions as a diligent employee, and he is currently enrolled in a university in pursuance of a bachelor’s degree in finance.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  

7.  The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s character and performance.  However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant’s chain of command.  As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity or to cause for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge.

8.  Therefore, based on the available evidence, the presumption of government regularity prevails in the discharge process as it appears that 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:  Personal Appearance      Date:  10 June 2014      Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes 

Counsel/Representative:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  No

DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE:

1.  The applicant submitted the following additional documents:

	a.  Hospital Insurance Claims – Sheppard Pratt – 4 pages
	b.  DA Form 2627 Art. 15 – 3 pages
	c.  DA 31 leave form – 2 pages
	d.  DA Form 3822 – Dr. comment – 1 page
	e.  Separation packet, Notification, approval, etc – 8 pages
	f.   DA form 2697 Health Evaluation – 3 pages
	g.  Request for Retention by NCOIC – 1 page
	h.  Request for Retention/Rebuttal 1 page
	i.   DA Form 705 PT scoring card – 1 page
	j.   DA Form 5790-R Firing card record – 1 page
	k.  ERB – 1 page
	l.   5 ST transcript – 2 pages
	m. Army training certificates – 14 pages
	n.  Enlistment Report/ASVAB scores - 1 page
	o.  College Enrollment letter - 1 page

2.  The applicant presented the 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:  1	No Change:  4
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)		AR20140004249

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1