AR20140000988

IN THE CASE OF: Mr.

BOARD DATE: 12 December 2014

CASE NUMBER: AR20140000988
___________________________________________________________________________

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 APPLICANTS REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

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

2. The applicant states, in effect, he has kept an honorable record since his discharge, served his county honorably; work at Target fulltime; and, working on going to school. He made a mistake and he has paid the price.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date: 6 January 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 28 June 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Pattern of Misconduct, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: In BN HHC, INF R FC, Lewis-McChord, WA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 100411, NIF
g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 2 Months, 18 days
h. Total Service: 5 years, 10 days
i. Time Lost: DEP – 080513-080618/NA
j. Previous Discharges: RA 080619-100410/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10, Infantryman
m. GT Score: 100
n. Education: GED
o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (120420-130110), Iraq (091101-101101)
q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-2, MUC, AGCM, ACM-CS, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL
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 19 June 2008, for a period of 3 years and
19 weeks. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and had a GED Certificate. He served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He earned an ARCOM and two AAMs and completed 5 years and
10 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. On 29 May 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b pattern of misconduct. Specifically for:

a. On 11 July 2012, making a false official statement (120711)
b. On 11 July 2012, stealing an Apple iPad (120711), and
c. On 6 April 2013, stealing a necklace (130406).

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

3. On 3 June 2013, 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 12 June 2013, the separation authority directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions.

5. The applicant was separated on 28 June 2013, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b Pattern of Misconduct, with a general under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA and an RE code 3.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:

1. Article 15, dated 18 April 2013, stole a silver necklace, the property of the Base Exchange at a value of about $21.99 on 6 April 2013. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $849.00 pay per month for 2 months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 15 October 2013, extra duty for 45 days.

2. Article 15, dated 21 July 2012, at or near DPC-A, Afghanistan, on 11 July 2012, the applicant was in violation of the two Articles listed below. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade Private First Class (PFC), forfeiture of $990.00 pay per month for two months, suspended to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 21 January 2013; and 45 days extra duty.

a. Article 107 The applicant made a false official statement with the intent to deceive his 1SG that he did not take the iPad.

b. Article 121 The applicant stole an Apple iPad, of a value greater than $500.00, the property of Sardars Kwik-R-Mart.
3. One negative counseling statement dated 6 April 2013, for being apprehended for shoplifting a silver necklace from the Base Exchange on McChord Airfield.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293 requesting a correction of his DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY:

The applicant states he is working full-time at Target and plans to register for school.

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 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.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicants record of service, 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 pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting or a fully honorable discharge.

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 he had good service, he made a mistake and he has paid for it and he is working on going to school. 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 repeated incidents of misconduct and by the negative counseling statement and the two documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Further, 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.

5. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.

6. 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: Records Review Date: 12 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

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) AR20140000988

Page 5 of 5 pages

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

1