IN THE CASE OF: Mr.
BOARD DATE: 5 December 2014
CASE NUMBER: AR20140001075
Board Determination and Directed Action
1. 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.
2. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicants discharge, the Board found the applicants DD Form 214, block 27 contains the erroneous reentry code of 4.
3. In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read RE-Code 3, as required by Army Regulations.
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, since his discharge he made several attempts to improve his life style, learning to be a productive father; he made every effort to be productive in life and society. An upgrade of his discharge would be an asset to his career and lifestyle. He desires to obtain a degree in meteorology.
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:
a. Application Receipt Date: 13 January 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 19 March 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14 Paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment: A Co, 40th Expeditionary Signal Battalion, Fort Huachuca, AZ
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 8 April 2009, 2 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 11 months, 12 days
h. Total Service: 5 years, 11 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: USAR (070309-070321)/NA IADT (070322-070816)/UNC USAR (070817-080109)/NIF RA (0080110-090407)HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist
m. GT Score: 104
n. Education: GED Certificate
o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (090818-100822)
q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-W/ARRW HD GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR-2,
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: No
t. Counseling Statements: Yes
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
The applicant enlisted in the US Army Reserve on 9 March 2007, for a period of 8 years. He was 21 years old at the time of entry with a GED Certificate. He was ordered to initial active duty training on 22 March 2007; he trained in and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist. He was discharged on 9 January 2008; the characterization of service was not in the file. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 January 2008, for a period of 3 years. He was 21 years old at the time of entry with a GED Certificate. He maintained his military occupational specialty (MOS) ) 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist. His last enlistment on 8 April 2009 was for a period of 2 years when he was 23 years old. His record also shows that he served a combat tour, earned several awards including an ARCOM, AAM-3, and an AGCM; and he achieved the rank of SPC/E-4. He was serving at Fort Huachuca, AZ when his discharge was initiated.
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
1. The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates on 8 February 2012, 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 the following offenses:
a. failing to go to the appointed place of duty on divers occasions,
b. losing his ID card,
c. failing to maintain his finances, and
d. driving a POV on post after his post driving privileges were revoked due to Driving Under the Influence (DUI).
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 10 February 2012, 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, which is not contained in the available record. 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 29 February 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 19 March 2012, 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 a RE code of 4.
6. The applicants service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:
1. An Article 15, dated 3 February 2012, for without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, x 3 (110819, 110830, 110929); the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $455 pay for one month (suspended), extra duty for 14 days and restriction for 14 days (suspended) (CG).
2. Several negative counseling statements, dated between 1 February 2011 and 5 December 2011, for separation counseling under Chapter 14, failing to report, driving on post after privileges were revoked, failing to maintain finances, losing his ID card, and missing an appointment.
3. A Sierra Vista Police Department document (three pages), dated 26 December 2011, indicating the applicant was charged with aggravated assault.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:
The applicant provided a DD Form 293.
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, several negative counseling statements, and a Sierra Vista Police Department document.
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 since his discharge he made several attempts to improve his lifestyle, learning to be a productive father; he made every effort to be productive in life and society. The applicant is to be commended for his efforts. These contentions are not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued.
5. The applicant further contends an upgrade of his discharge would be an asset to his career and life style. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.
6. The applicant desires to obtain a degree in meteorology. 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 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, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief.
9. However, the service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 27, reentry code as 4. The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge by reason of a pattern of misconduct. AR 635-5-1, (Separation Program Designator Codes) and Cross Reference Table shows a Soldier processed for a pattern of misconduct will be assigned an SPD Code of JKA and an RE Code of 3.
10. In view of the foregoing and notwithstanding the propriety of the discharge, the analyst recommends the Board change block 27, reentry code to 3, as approved by the separation authority.
SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:
Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 5 December 2014 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify, NA
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: Yes
Change Characterization to: No Change
Change Reason to: No Change
Change Authority for Separation: NA
Change RE Code to: 3
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) AR20140001075
Page 6 of 6 pages
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)
CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE