IN THE CASE OF: Mr.
BOARD DATE: 19 May 2014
CASE NUMBER: AR20140001755
Board Determination and Directed Action
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the examiners 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, his discharge needs to be upgraded. He did not receive any type of rehabilitation before being discharged. In a separate application, he states he received documentation stating that his discharge was upgraded and that he is now applying to establish consistency around his discharge. He adds he is trying to continue to rebuild his life and continuing his education to become a more productive member of society. In his self-authored statement, in pertinent part and in effect, he adds his request is based on his productivity since his discharge and to obtain a gainful employment as well as improve his access to a better quality of life as a veteran. In 2005, he was determined to be a service-connected veteran for his injuries that occurred on active duty. Since his discharge, he received both a bachelors and masters degree in social work with a specialty in mental health. He graduated with a 3.65 GPA. He performed his internship with the HUD/VASH program within VA. In 2014, he completed his second masters in public administration.
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:
a. Application Receipt Date: 24 January 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 1 May 2002
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ,
e. Unit of assignment: 528th QM Petroleum, Fort Lewis, WA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 25 June 2001, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 0 years, 10 months, 7 days
h. Total Service: 0 years, 10 months, 7 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: NIF
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 77F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist
m. GT Score: NIF
n. Education: 13 years
o. Overseas Service: None
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: None
t. Counseling Statements: NIF
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 June 2001, for a period of 4 years. He was 23 years old at the time of entry and had a year of college. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 77F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist. His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. He completed 10 months and 7 days of active duty service.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:
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 1 May 2002, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct, 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 does not show any recorded actions under the UCMJ, unauthorized absences or time lost. However, he was separated as a PVT/E-1 and any action causing his reduction is not contained in the service record.
4. On 24 April 2002, HQDA, I Corps and Fort Lewis, Military Personnel Division, Fort Lewis, WA, Orders Number 114-0002, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 1 May 2002.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:
There are no counseling statements or UCMJ actions in the record.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:
The applicant provided with an online application, a DD 149, Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552, dated 21 January 2014; DD Form 214 for service under current review; a self-authored statement, dated 17 April 2014; VA letter, dated 17 October 2012; his resume, dated 17 April 2014; and a transcript, dated 18 April 2013.
The applicant states, in effect, that since his discharge, he has earned both a bachelors and masters degree in social work with a specialty in mental health. He graduated with a 3.65 GPA. He performed his internship with the HUD/VASH program within VA. In 2014, he completed his second masters in public administration.
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 the applicants record of service, his military records, and the issues and documents 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 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), 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, 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 contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant’s quality of service. There is also 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 insufficient evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. At his personal appearance hearing, it would 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.
5. The applicant contends he did not receive any type of rehabilitation before his discharge. However, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements states, the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier.
6. The applicant has expressed his desire to improve his access to a better quality of life as a veteran and indicated he was determined a service-connected veteran, perhaps indicating a desire for VA benefits. 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.
7. The applicant contends that since leaving the Army, he has earned both a bachelors and masters degrees in social work with a specialty in mental health, graduated with a 3.65 GPA, performed his internship with the HUD/VASH program within VA, and completed his second masters in public administration. The applicants post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application. However, in review of the applicants entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.
8. 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.
SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:
Type of Hearing: Record Review Date: 19 May 2014 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify, No
Counsel/Representative: Yes [Redacted]
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
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) AR20140001755
Page 6 of 6 pages
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)
CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE