IN THE CASE OF: Mr.
BOARD DATE: 14 November 2014
CASE NUMBER: AR20140000473
Board Determination and Directed Action
After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review notwithstanding the examiners Discussion and Recommendation that follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the length and quality of the applicants service to include his combat service and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.
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 APPLICANTS 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, his discharge was improper due to the lack of rehabilitative attempts by the command; minor issues could have possibly been fixed by a simple transfer within the company. His discharge was inequitable because the command did not give enough weight to the standards he exceeded in many areas of his duties. The character statements submitted with his application addresses his commitment to duty in the area of training, preparedness, individual readiness, commitment to responsibility, integrity, his motivation to become a better Soldier and person, even during his chapter process.
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:
a. Application Receipt Date: 27 December 2013
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 25 February 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct , AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: B Co, 2-504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, Fort Bragg, NC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 9 November 2010, 5 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 3 months, 17 days
h. Total Service: 2 years, 3 months, 17 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B1P, Infantryman
m. GT Score: 124
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (120321-120804)
q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-W/CS, GWOTSM, ASR, NATO MDL, CIB
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: No
t. Counseling Statements: No
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 November 2010, for a period of 5 years. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B1P, Infantryman. His record also shows he served a combat tour, earned an ARCOM and a CIB; he achieved the rank of SPC/E-4. He was serving at Fort Bragg, NC when his discharge was initiated.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates on 16 January 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct for receiving a CG Article 15 for violating a lawful general regulation, by consuming alcohol while on duty (121121).
2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.
3. On 17 January 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and indicated he intended to submit a statement on his own behalf. On 25 January 2013, in a memorandum the paralegal NCOIC indicated the applicant was afforded five calendar days to submit matters on his own behalf and failed to do so within the prescribed time. 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 1 February 2013, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 25 February 2013, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3.
6. The applicants service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences, time lost or any negative counseling statements.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:
1. An Article 15, dated 21 November 2012, for violating a lawful general regulation, by consuming alcohol on duty; the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, extra duty and restriction for 14 days, (CG). However, this Article 15 is not contained in the available record; see unit commanders recommendation memorandum.
2. Enlistment/Reenlistment document dated 9 November 2010.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:
The applicant provided a DD Form 293, and four character statements.
The applicant did not provide any information with his application.
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 members 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 Soldiers separation specifically allows such characterization.
ANALYSTS DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining his military record, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.
2. The record confirms that the applicants 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 pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicants record of service was marred by an Article 15, which was not contained in the available record.
3. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command’s action was erroneous or that the applicants service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.
4. The applicant contends his discharge was improper due to the lack of any rehabilitative attempts by the command; minor issues could have possibly been fixed by a simple transfer within the company. AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements states, the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. After reviewing the applicants discharge packet, the separation authority properly waived the rehabilitative requirements. Moreover, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to this effort.
5. Further, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicants discharge is commensurate with his overall service record.
6. The applicant further contends his discharge was inequitable because the command did not give enough weight to the standards he exceeded in many areas of his duties. The applicants 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 overcome the reason for discharge and the characterization of service granted.
7. The applicant also contends the character statements submitted with his application addresses the his commitment to duty in the area of training, preparedness, individual readiness, commitment to responsibility, integrity, his motivation to become a better Soldier and person even, during his chapter process. The character statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicants performance while on active duty. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity.
8. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.
9. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief.
BOARD DETERMINATION AND DIRECTED ACTION:
After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review notwithstanding the examiners Discussion and Recommendation, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the length and quality of the applicants service to include his combat service and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.
SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:
Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 14 November 2014 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify: NA
Character Change: 5 No Change: 0
Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5
(Board member names available upon request)
Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214: Yes
Change Characterization to: Honorable
Change Reason to: No Change
Change Authority for Separation: NA
Change RE Code to: NA
Grade Restoration to: NA
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) AR20140000473
Page 6 of 6 pages
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)
CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE