BOARD DATE: 10 December 2014

CASE NUMBER: AR20140000876

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.


1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2. The applicant states, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for education purposes and to be able to receive medical help from the Veterans Administration. He contends it was never explained to him he would be discharged for a serious offense. He contends he suffers from many injuries received while in the military (i.e., mental & emotional). He contends he has a hard time sleeping as well as an eating disorder. He contends he was told at the Veterans Administration Hospital that he has PTSD, and he has a very hard time expressing himself. He needs medical attention, wants to get a job, and needs to go back to school.


a. Application Receipt Date: 2 January 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 23 October 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: A Co, 2nd Bn, 327th IN AA, Fort Campbell, KY
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 7 April 2009, for 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 6 months, 17 days
h. Total Service: 3 years, 6 months, 17 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10, Infantryman
m. GT Score: NIF
n. Education: HS Gradate
o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (100503-110504)
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: None
t. Counseling Statements: Yes
u. Prior Board Review: No


The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 April 2009, for a period of 4 years. He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. His record indicates he served in Afghanistan; achieved the rank of SPC/E-4; and received several awards to include an ARCOM, AGCM and the CIB. He was serving at Fort Campbell, KY when his separation was initiated. He completed 3 years, 6 months, and 17 days of total military service.


1. The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates on 28 June 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct (serious offense) for assaulting a noncommissioned officer (120202) by attempting to strike him with his fist.

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 12 September 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on 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 25 September 2012, 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 23 October 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and a RE code of 3.

6. The applicants service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.


1. A Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, imposed 26 April 2012, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed placed of duty on divers occasions between (111206 and 120130) and for assaulting a noncommissioned officer (120202) by attempting to punch him in the face. The sentence consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $919.00 pay, and confinement for 30 days.

2. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 September 2012, which indicates the applicant was screened for PTSD and TBI with a score of 39/85 for PTSD; test results were negative for both. The psychiatrist indicates in the report, the applicant reported a history of a blast exposure during deployment in which he briefly blacked-out, but had not required treatment since his return, and agreed that it did not significantly contribute to his alleged misconduct. He had a history of anger problems preceding his military service, and preceding the reported concussion. He met medical retention standards, and was cleared for all administrative actions deemed appropriate by his command including separation under Chapter 14 or 13 of AR 635-200.

3. Five negative counseling statements dated between 8 December 2011 and 30 January 2012, for failure to report, failure to obey and order or regulation, lying to a noncommissioned officer, failure to follow a directive, and failure to maintain living quarters.


The applicant provided a DD Form 293, DD Form 149, request pertaining to his military records, claim for combat-related special compensation (CRSC), a portion of his enlistment contract, his separation orders information sheet, a letter of recommendation, and a copy of his DD Form 214 for the period of service under review.


None was provide with the 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.


1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicants record of service, 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 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 misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicants record of service was marred by his summary court-martial for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and several negative counseling statements.

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 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 warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the incidents of misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements and the documented actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

5. The applicant contends he is suffering from several medical issues to include PTSD as a result of his military service. Evidence in the record shows the applicant was screened for PTSD and TBI with a score of 39/85 for PTSD; test results were negative for both. Further, the service record does not support the applicants contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service.

6. The applicant has expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of finishing his degree and getting medical treatment at the Veterans Administration. However, eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include 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.

7. 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

8. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief.


Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 10 December 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

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) AR20140000876

Page 6 of 6 pages