AR20140001892

IN THE CASE OF: Mr.

BOARD DATE: 12 December 2014

CASE NUMBER: AR20140001892
___________________________________________________________________________

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.

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, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to go to school and better his life. He contends he has made mistakes in the past but believes he still has a chance to make his life a lot better.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date: 24 January 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 23 May 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment: 3rd FA Sqd, Fort Hood, TX
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 14 February 2011, 4 years and 21 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 3 months, 10 days
h. Total Service: 1 year, 3 months, 10 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 42A10, Human Resources Specialist
m. GT Score: 87
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: None
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: None
t. Counseling Statements: None
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 February 2011, for a period of 4 years and 21 weeks. He was 21 years old at the time and a high school graduate. He was serving at Fort Hood, TX when his discharge was initiated. The record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. The applicants service record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army to include the unit commander’s notification memorandum, the applicant’s elections of rights and the chain of command’s recommendation.

2. The applicant’s service record does contain the separation authorities memorandum, dated 7 May 2012, which indicates the separation authority waived rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs.

3. The record also contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicants signature.

4. On 10 May 2012, DA, HQ III Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, TX, Orders Number 131-0100, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 23 May 2012.

5. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 23 May 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, for misconduct (drug abuse), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKK and a reentry (RE) code of 4.

6. The applicants available service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:

The applicants available record does not show any recorded actions under the UCMJ or negative counseling statements; however, the applicant’s record shows he achieved the rank of PV2/E-2 and he was separated as a PVT/E-1, the action that caused his reduction is not contained in the service record.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY:

None was provided with the application.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

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.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicants available record of service, 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 available record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the record contains the separation authority’s approval memorandum and a properly constituted DD Form 214 which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature. These documents identify 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(2) by reason of misconduct (drug abuse), 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. There is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant’s quality of service. 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.

5. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to go to school and better his life. 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.

6. 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 the analyst recommends the Board deny relief.

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 12 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

Legend:
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) AR20140001892

Page 5 of 5 pages

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

1