BOARD DATE: 13 March 2015

CASE NUMBER: AR20140002577

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge to be 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 to upgrade the characterization of his service from a bad conduct discharge to general, under honorable conditions.

2. The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, his discharge was based on an isolated incident in his 17 years of service. When he presented his concerns to his first sergeant regarding his mental health status and family issues they were ignored. The position and rank he held, including his many awards, prove his commitment to the Army and his honorable service. He has struggled to rehabilitate himself and improve his status as a civilian by continuing his education.


a. Application Receipt Date: 5 February 2014
b. Discharge Received: Bad Conduct
c. Date of Discharge: 13 May 2005
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Court-Martial, Other, AR 635-200, Chapter 3, JJD,
e. Unit of assignment: D Co, 57th Sig Bn, 3rd Sig Bde, Fort Hood, TX
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 8 November 2001, Indefinite
g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 4 months, 6 days
h. Total Service: 19 years, 11 months, 02 days
i. Time Lost: 32 days
j. Previous Discharges: RA (850510-880210) / HD
RA (880211-911126) / HD
RA (911127-930524) / HD
RA (930525-960925) / HD
RA (960926-011107) / HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-7
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 31D10, Telecommunications System Operator
m. GT Score: NIF
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: SWA
p. Combat Service: SWA (910117-910315),
q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-4; AAM-3; NDSM; AGCM-5; SWASM-3BSS;
GWOTSM; KLM (SA); KLM (Kuwait); NPDR-2; ASR;
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
t. Counseling Statements: NIF
u. Prior Board Review: No


The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 May 1985, and reenlisted five times thereafter. The latter reenlistment was on 8 November 2001, for an indefinite period. He was 24 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31D10, Telecommunications System Operator. He served in Southwest Asia, including Kuwait. He earned four ARCOM and three AAM award. He completed a total of 19 years, 11 months, and 2 days of active duty service.


1. The applicants 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 not authenticated by the applicants signature.

2. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 13 May 2005, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 3, AR 635-200, for Court-Martial, Other with a bad conduct characterization of service. Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JJD with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4.

3. The applicants available record for current service under review does not show any further evidence of actions under the UCMJ.

4. There are no discharge orders.

5. The applicant’s record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 5February 2002 through 6 February 2002, and being in confinement during the period 13September 2002 through 12 October 2002, for a total of 32 days of time lost.


1. There are no negative counseling statements or actions under the UCMJ for the current period of service under review.

2. A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 18 March 2002, for wrongfully using cocaine, detected during a command-directed urinalysis (020204).

3. One NCOER was rendered during period of current service under review. A Change of Rater evaluation report covering the period of February 2001 to November 2001, indicates the applicant was rated as Fully Capable and received 2/2 from the senior rater.


The applicant provided a self-authored statement; DD Form 214 for service under current review; ABMCR decision documents, dated 22 August 2013; Honorable Discharge certificate, dated 7 November 2001; AGCM certificates, dated 9 May 1991 and 8 May 1994; Oath of Reenlistment certificate, dated 8 November 2001; ARCOM certificates, dated 9 December 1993, 10 December 1999, and 13 April 1991; AAM certificates, dated 16 August 1998, 11 July 1997, and 8 May 1995; course completion certificate, dated 15 June 2001; certificates of achievements, dated, 4 are undated, 16 May 1994, 10 February 1999, 15 December 1999, 8 January 1999, and 15 March 1991; ANCOC course completion certificate, dated 13 April 2001; an unauthenticated NCOER, dated December 2001; Academic Course Evaluation Report, dated 8October 1992; Secret security clearance certificate, dated 23 August 1995; Bachelor of Science degree, dated 16 February 2007; Master of Education degree, dated December 2008; character reference letters, 11 April 2012, one undated, 18 August 2011, 29 February 2012, 2March 2012, 22 and 23 August 2011, and 18 August 2011; birth certificate; and resume.


The applicant states, in effect, since his discharge he has struggled to rehabilitate himself and improved his status as a civilian by continuing his education. The submitted evidence indicates he has since completed his bachelors and masters degrees.


1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3, Section IV establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.

2. Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the ADRB to be established facts, issues relating to the applicants innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.

3. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the ADRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.


1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered.

2. After examining the applicants record of service, his military records, and the documents and issues submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge to general, under honorable conditions for the following reasons:

a. Length and quality of service: The applicant served a total of 19 years, 11 months, and 2days of an initial enlistment and five reenlistments, thus the preponderance of his service was honorable.

b. The record confirms the applicant received several awards, specifically four ARCOMs and 3 AAMs.

c. The applicants post-service accomplishments as provided in two of the documents with his application indicate he received his bachelors and masters degrees. His submitted evidence also indicate he works with children and the elderly daily, both as a volunteer and paid basis, such as serving as a teachers aid.

3. This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the applicants faithful and honorable service, as well as any record of misconduct that is not currently available for the service under current review. 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. The applicant contends the concerns he presented to his first sergeant regarding his mental health status and family issues were ignored; the position and rank he held, including many awards, prove his commitment to the Army and honorable service; and he struggled to rehabilitate himself and improved his status as a civilian by continuing his education.

5. In view of the foregoing, it appears the characterization of the discharge is now inequitable and it is recommended the Board grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable.


After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation, the Board determined the discharge to be proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.


Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 13 March 2015 Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify, No

Counsel/Representative: None

Board Vote:
Character Change: 0 No Change: 5
Reason Change: NA No Change: NA
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214: No
Change Characterization to: No Change
Change Reason to: NA
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) AR20140002577

Page 6 of 6 pages