IN THE CASE OF: Mr.
BOARD DATE: 17 April 2015
CASE NUMBER: AR20140002400
Board Determination and Directed Action
After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the characterization of service was too harsh based on the overall length and quality of the applicant’s service, to include his combat service, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.
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 his discharge was based on an isolated incident of misconduct. He contends, he was charged with his first and only DUI off post which was dropped by the DA due to the police officer being relieved of service. He contends, he attended ASAP where he received three performance reviews that were satisfactory. He also received a letter of recommendation to remain in service from his ASAP counselor which was rare to receive in his program. He contends, members of his chain of command separately attended my performance reviews which resulted in a satisfactory recommendation. He contends, that according to Army Regulation, once a Soldier completes the program they are considered fit to resume duty. He completed the ASAP program above standards. He also contends he was discharged two months and a few days short of his ETS date.
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:
a. Application Receipt Date: 3 February 2014
b. Discharge received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 14 December 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: B Co, 307th BSB, 1st BCT, Fort Bragg, NC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 17 February 2011, 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 9 months, 28 days
h. Total Service: 9 years, 10 months, 12 days (The DD Form 214 under review shows 9 years, 10 months, and 22 days, it appears an error of 10 days was made on the DD Form 214.)
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: RA-040203-080217/HD RA-080218-110216/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-5
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 91D20, Power Generation Equipment Repairer
m. GT Score: 101
n. Education: 14 Years
o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (050519-060305 and 120314-120917) and Iraq (070604-080715 and 090815-100730)
q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, AAM-3, AGCM-2, ACM-w/2CS, ICM-w/CS-3, NATO MDL, JMUA, MUC-2, USNUC, NDSM, GWOTSM, NPDR, ASR, OSR-3, CAB
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: Yes
t. Counseling Statements: None
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 February 2004, for a period of 4 years.
On 18 February 2008, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years, and on 17 February 2011, he reenlisted for another 3 years. He was 27 years old at the time of his last reenlistment. His record indicates he served two tours in Afghanistan and two in Iraq; achieved the rank of SGT/E-5; and earned several awards to include two ARCOMs, three AAMs and two AGCMs. He was serving at Fort Bragg, NC when separation action was initiated.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates that on 29 March 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct (serious offense) for being apprehended (130113) for driving under the influence with a blood alcohol content of .23 percent. This was over the legal limit authorized to operate a motor vehicle in the state of North Carolina.
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 30 April 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. The applicant submitted a statement on his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
4. On 16 August 2013, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights.
5. On 4 September 2013, an administrative separation board determined the applicant committed a serious offense under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200. The board recommended the applicant be separated with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
6. On 24 October 2013, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
7. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 14 December 2013, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3.
8. The applicants service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:
1. NCO Evaluation Report, for the period covering 1 February 2012 through 31 January 2013, which shows the applicant was rated overall as “Fully Capable.”
2. A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand dated 11 February 2013, for driving while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of .23 percent.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:
The applicant provided an online application, dated 30 January 2014, a memorandum, dated 23 August 2013 “Summary of Rehabilitation Efforts in the (ASAP), and his ASAP outpatient discharge summary, dated 7 October 2013, “which shows the applicant achieved all of his identified treatment goals. The applicant was discharged from ASAP as a success due to meeting all treatment goals and his self-report of feeling confident in his abilities to employ the strategies and skills he had obtained to reduce his risk of relapse in the future.”
None was provided with the 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.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered.
2. After examining the applicants record of service, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge to honorable for the following reasons:
a. Length and quality of service: The applicant served 2 years 9 months and 28 days of a 3 year enlistment, for a total service of 9 years 10 months, and 12 days, thus the preponderance of his service was honorable.
b. The record confirms the applicant received several awards, specifically two ARCOMs, three AAMs and two AGCMs and served two tours of combat in Iraq and two in Afghanistan.
c. The clinical counselor indicated in the final assessment the applicant achieved all of his identified treatment goals and he was discharged from the ASAP as a success due to meeting all treatment goals.
3. This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the applicants faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicants characterization of service may now be too harsh and as a result inequitable.
4. In view of the foregoing, it appears the characterization of the discharge is now inequitable and it is recommended the Board grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable.
SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:
Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 17 April 2015 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify, NA
Character Change: 4 No Change: 1
Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5
(Board member names available upon request)
Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214: Yes
Change Characterization to: Honorable
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) AR20140002400
Page 6 of 6 pages
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)
CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE