IN THE CASE OF: Mr.
BOARD DATE: 15 December 2014
CASE NUMBER: AR20140001543
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.
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 to upgrade the characterization of his service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.
2. The applicant states, in effect, an upgrade would allow him to attend school or obtain better job opportunities so that he may provide for his family.
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:
a. Application Receipt Date: 16 January 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 17 November 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter
paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: 552nd MP Co, 728th MP Bn, Schofield Barracks, HI
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 25 October 2011, 5 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 23 days
h. Total Service: 2 years, 23 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 31B10, Military Police
m. GT Score: 91
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: Hawaii
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: None
t. Counseling Statements: Yes
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 October 2011, for a period of 5 years. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31B10, Military Police. He served in Hawaii. His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. He completed 2 years and 23 days of active duty service.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates that on 2 October 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, specifically for the following misconduct:
a. violating Article 92, UCMJ, by being derelict in the performance of his duties on divers occasions (130717-130817) and
b. violating Article 120, UCMJ, by receiving a letter of concern from COL J due to alleged sexual misconduct (130306).
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 2 October 2013, 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 18 October 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 17 November 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 or time lost.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:
1. Article 15, dated 4 September 2013, for being derelict in the performance of his duties on two occasions (130817 and 130811). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, 14 days of extra duty (suspended) and 14 days of restriction, (CG).
2. Article 15, dated 25 July 2013, for being derelict in the performance of his duties (130717). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2 and 14 days of extra duty, (CG).
3. A negative counseling statement, dated 20 August 2013, for being recommended for an involuntary separation under provisions of paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200.
4. A Memorandum of Concern, dated 6 March 2013, for having charges of abusive sexual contact and rape, violation of Article 120, UCMJ, preferred against him on 14 February 2013.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:
The applicant provided none.
The applicant provided none.
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.
4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKA” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct.
5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of “JKA” will be assigned an RE Code of 3.
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, his military records, 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 a fully honorable discharge. The applicants record of service was marred two Article 15 actions for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
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 has expressed his desire to have better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities, or to obtain educational benefits. 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: 15 December 2014 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify, NA
Character Change: 1 No Change: 4
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
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) AR20140001543
Page 6 of 6 pages
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)
CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE