BOARD DATE: 17 December 2014

CASE NUMBER: AR20140002539

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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2. The applicant states, in effect, he was told at the time of his discharge that he would be eligible for an upgrade to honorable after six months. The applicant did not present any issues of equity or propriety in his application.


a. Application Receipt Date: 4 February 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 21 August 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Patterns of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter
14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: A Battery, 5-82nd Field Artillery Regiment, Fort
Hood, TX
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 31 May 2011/3 years, 18 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 2 months, 21 days
h. Total Service: 1 year, 2 months, 21 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 13B10, Cannon Crewmember
m. GT Score: 117
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: None
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: NA
s. Performance Ratings: NA
t. Counseling Statements: NIF
u. Prior Board Review: No

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 May 2011, for a period of 3 years and 18 weeks. He was 21 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. His record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement. He completed 1 year, 2 months, and 21 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Hood, Texas.


1. The applicants service record is void of the complete 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 and the separation authority memorandum.

2. On 5 August 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service as general, under honorable conditions.

3. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 21 August 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKA and a reentry (RE) code of 3.

4. 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 the action that caused his reduction is not contained in the service record.

5. On 13 August 2012, DA Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, Texas, Orders Number 226-0115, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 21 August 2012.


Orders Number 226-0115, dated 13 August 2012.


The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated January 2014, and a DD Form 214.


The applicant did not provide any in support of 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 the applicants record of service and his military records, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.

2. The applicants record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature. The DD Form 214 also indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern 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.

3. The applicants requests for an upgrade based on the time that has elapsed since the discharge was carefully considered. However, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable.

4. There is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant’s quality of service. Moreover, there is 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 no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge.

5. 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.

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 recommend the Board deny relief.


Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 17 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

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) AR20140002539

Page 5 of 5 pages