BOARD DATE: 17 December 2014

CASE NUMBER: AR20140001678

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, he was victim of racism during his service. He served his country honorably. He desires to receive VA benefits.


a. Application Receipt Date: 13 January 2014
b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 18 April 2006
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct , AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: B Co, 1-72nd Armor, 1st Heavy Brigade Combat Team, Korea
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 1 October 2004, 3 years and 19 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 years, 6 months, 18 days
h. Total Service: 1 years, 6 months, 18 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10, Infantryman
m. GT Score: 91
n. Education: NIF
o. Overseas Service: Korea
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: No
t. Counseling Statements: Yes
u. Prior Board Review: No


The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 October 2004, for a period of 3 years and 19 weeks. He was 22 years old at the time of entry and his education was not in the file. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B10, Infantryman. His record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements; he achieved the rank of PFC/E-3. He was serving in Korea when his discharge was initiated.


1. The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates on 7 March 2006, 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. receiving a Summarized Article 15 for two violations of Article 86, failing to be at his appointed place of duty (050629),

b. receiving a Field Grade Article 15 for violating Article 134, wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties (051212), and

c. being counseled for violating the authorized limit of alcohol he could purchase.

2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.

3. On 10 March 2006, the applicant consulted legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, 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 and senior commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

4. On 3 April 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 18 April 2006, with a characterization of service of under other than 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.


1. An Article 15, dated 12 December 2005, for overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties (051024); the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $100 pay for two months, extra duty and restriction for 45 days, (FG).

2. An Article 15, dated 29 June 2005, for without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 2 (050513, 050612); the punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days, (Summarized).

3. He received eight negative counseling statements dated between 13 May 2005 and 10 February 2006, for missing formation due to alcohol consumption, failing to report on two occasions, being drunk on duty, violating ration control measures, and being chaptered for a pattern of misconduct.

4. DA Form 8003, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) Enrollment, dated 16 June 2005, indicating the applicant was command referred to ADAPCP.


The applicant provided a DD Form 293, a letter, Oneida Nations Veterans Service Office, and a letter of recommendation.


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.


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 two Articles 15, eight negative counseling statements, and an ADAPCP enrollment form.

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 was victim of racism during his service. Although the applicant alleges he was a victim of racism during his military service, there is no evidence in his military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention. Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge.

5. The applicant further contends he served his country honorably. 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 under review.

6. The applicant desires to receive VA benefits. 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.


Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 17 December 2014 Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify: NA

Counsel: Yes [ redacted ]

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) AR20140001678

Page 6 of 6 pages