AR20140002542

IN THE CASE OF: Mr.

BOARD DATE: 28 January 2015

CASE NUMBER: AR20140002542
___________________________________________________________________________

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 to upgrade the characterization of his service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2. The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, his discharge is inequitable because he enlisted at 17 years of age. He was misled about being able to change his status to Army Reserve at basic training, followed by being told until he arrived at AIT, where he was informed he could not change his status. His father wrote to his congressman and soon thereafter, he was separated. He had no behavioral or morale issues until he arrived at AIT. He is currently attending school to become a registered nurse.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date: 4 February 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 10 July 2000
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unsatisfactory Performance, AR 635-200, Chapter
13, JHJ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: Co A, 1st Bn, 222nd Aviation Regiment, Fort Eustis, VA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 3 November 1999, 6 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 0 years, 8 months, 8 days
h. Total Service: 0 years, 8 months, 8 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 68F10, Aircraft Electrician
m. GT Score: 112
n. Education: GED
o. Overseas Service: None
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: None
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: None
t. Counseling Statements: Yes
u. Prior Board Review: No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 November 1999, for a period of 6 years. He was 17 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED). He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 68F10, Aircraft Electrician. His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. He completed 8months and 8 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. The applicants service record shows that on 15 June 2000, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, specifically for:

a. demonstrating character and behavior traits not compatible with satisfactory continued service;
b. receiving an end of phase counseling and evaluation as being a marginal Soldier (000229);
c. requesting to be separated from service due to lack of motivation (000226);
d. being counseled for failing to maintain his boots to standard and improperly wearing his rank insignia (003006);
e. requesting to be separated from service (000306) and still lacked motivation even after being placed with a motivated battle buddy and seeing a chaplain;
f. being counseled for failing to shave prior to the first formation (000329);
g. being counseled for showing lack of discipline and having a negative attitude toward physical training (000424);
h. being counseled for failing the diagnostic APFT (000424);
i. being counseled for missing the 0600 hours accountability formation and lying to an NCO (000510); and
j. failing all stations of examination 9v1-309-04AH-1PT #3 by failing to achieve a minimum score of 70 percent.

2. The unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.

3. On 20 June 2000, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on his behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.

4. On 21 June 2000, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant was not transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group.

5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 10 July 2000, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:

1. Eighteen negative counseling statements dated between 29 January 2000 and 24 May 2000, for being a marginal Soldier; requesting to be separated from the service for being unmotivated and not wanting to be there; wearing an unserviceable uniform; rank insignia being improperly worn; failing to shave prior to the first formation; failing to achieve a minimum score of 70 percent on numerous occasions; having apathy towards physical fitness; failing to live by the Army Core Values; failing four separate diagnostic APFTs; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time; lying to an NCO; and being considered for an involuntary separation.

2. There is no record of any UCMJ action.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided none.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY:

The applicant states, in effect, he is currently attending school to become a registered nurse.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.

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 policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases.

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 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. By the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable characterization of service.

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 his discharge is inequitable because he enlisted at 17 years of age and was misled about changing his status to Army Reserve at basic training, followed by being told until he arrived at AIT, where he was informed he could not change his status, and he had no behavioral or morale issues until he arrived at AIT. Regarding his age to perhaps indicate that he was young and immature at the time of the discharge, the record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age, and there is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Further, the rationale the applicant provided that he was misled into changing his active duty status at both the basic and advanced individual trainings as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge and warranting an upgrade to an honorable discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. Therefore, his contentions are without merit toward a consideration for an upgrade of the characterization of his service.

5. The applicant contends that he is currently attending school to become a registered nurse. This post-service accomplishment has been noted as outlined on the application. However, in review of the applicants entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that this accomplishment does not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities, or to obtain VA benefits.

6. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicants discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. Accordingly, the records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.

7. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief.

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 28 January 2015 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) AR20140002542

Page 6 of 6 pages

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

1