BOARD DATE: 3 December 2014

CASE NUMBER: AR20140001088

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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2. The applicant states, in effect, he desires to use his Post 9/11 GI Bill to further his education. He states his goal is to earn a masters degree. He did not present any issues of equity or propriety for the Board to consider.


a. Application Receipt Date: 10 January 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 21 October 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200
Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: B Company, 1-67th Armor Battalion, Fort
Carson, CO
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 17 March 2012/NIF
g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 7 months, 5 days
h. Total Service: 11 years, 10 months, 17 days
i. Time Lost: 40 days
j. Previous Discharges: ARNG, 011205-050308, GD
IADT, 020704-030314, HD (Concurrent Service)
USAR, 051208-060306, NIF
RA, 060307-070821, HD
RA, 070822-120315, HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist
m. GT Score: 93
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: SWA
p. Combat Service: Iraq (070401-071103)
Afghanistan (110515-120516)
q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM
r. Administrative Separation Board: NIF
s. Performance Ratings: NA
t. Counseling Statements: NIF
u. Prior Board Review: No

The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 5 December 2001. He was discharged from the ARNG with a general, under honorable conditions discharge and transferred to the US Army Reserve. He reenlisted into the Regular Army on 7 March 2006, for a period of 3 years and 2 weeks. He last reenlisted on 17 March 2012, for an unknown period of time; he was 23 years old at the time of reenlistment and a high school graduate. He served in Iraq and Afghanistan, earned an ARCOM and an AAM, and completed 11 years, 10 months, and 17 days of total military service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Carson, Colorado.


1. The applicants 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 authenticated by the applicants signature.

2. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 21 October 2013, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKQ and a reentry (RE) code of 3.

3. The applicants available record indicates the applicant had 40 days of lost time covering the periods of 11 January 2013 through 14 February 2013, and 23 August 2013 through
28 August 2013. He was separated as a PVT/E-2 and the action that caused his reduction is not contained in the service record.

4. On 10 October 2013, HQs, USA Garrison, Fort Carson, Fort Carson, Colorado, Orders Number 283-0033, discharged the applicant from the Army, effective 21 October 2013.


1. Discharge Orders Number 283-0033, dated 10 October 2013.

2. Four DA Forms 4187 reflects the applicants duty status changed from present for duty (PDY) to AWOL, to AWOL to PDY, from PDY to confinement by civilian authorities (CCA), and from CCA to PDY. The effective dates ranged from 23 August 2012 through 14 February 2013.


The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 7 January 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review.


The applicant did not provide any in support of 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.


1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicants record of service, his military records, the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.

2. The applicants 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, which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process.
3. The DD Form 214 also indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c by reason of misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4. The applicant’s contention was carefully considered. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. 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.

5. Further, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant’s quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicants statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge.

6. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Boards consideration because they are not available in the official record.

7. Therefore, based on the available evidence and the government presumption of regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief.


Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 3 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) AR20140001088

Page 6 of 6 pages