IN THE CASE OF: Mr.
BOARD DATE: 30 January 2015
CASE NUMBER: AR20140003150
Board Determination and Directed Action
After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the examiners Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the length and quality of the applicants 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, he proudly served his country for six years. He is a good member of society. He desires to receive VA benefits and better job opportunities.
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:
a. Application Receipt Date: 12 February 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 26 July 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14 paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment: 583rd Forward Support Company, 3-321st Field Artillery Regiment, Fort Bragg, NC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 30 March 2010, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 3 months, 27 days
h. Total Service: 5 years, 3 months, 17 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: RA (070410-100329)/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 88M10, Motor Transport Operator
m. GT Score: 99
n. Education: GED Certificate
o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service: Iraq (081001-090930)
q. Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM, ICM-W/2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: No
t. Counseling Statements: Yes/submitted by the applicant
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 April 2007, for a period of 3 years and 18 weeks. He was 18 years old at the time of entry with a GED Certificate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M10, Motor Transport Operator. He reenlisted on 30 March 2010, for a period of 4 years and he was 21 years old at the time. His record also shows he served a combat tour, earned an AGCM; and he achieved the rank of SPC/E-4. He was serving at Fort Bragg, NC when his discharge was initiated.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates on 22 May 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct. Specifically for the following offenses:
a. failing to obey a lawful order from a commissioned officer (120215), and
b. violating a lawful general regulation (110906).
2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.
3. On 22 June 2012, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and declined the opportunity to do so. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
4. On 11 July 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 26 July 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3.
6. The applicants service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences, time lost or any actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ. However, he was separated as a PFC/E-3 and the action that caused his reduction is not contained in the service record.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:
The record did not contain any other relevant information related to his discharge.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:
The applicant provided a DD Form 293, certificate, honorable discharge, oath of reenlistment, AGCM Orders 235-06/with certificate, combat patch certificate, certificate of appreciation, medical protection system (MEDPRO), DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), a DD Form 214, letter/with VA document, letter, case management division, letter of recommendation, support statement, and an Army Continuing Education System letter.
The applicant did not provide any information with 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.
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, the issues and documents 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. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
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 he proudly served his country for six years. The record shows he completed 5 years, 3 months, and 17 days of military service. The applicants service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceedings were carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge under review.
5. The applicant further contends he is a good member of society. The applicant is to be commended for his effort. However, this contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued.
6. The applicant desires to receive VA benefits and better job opportunities. 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.
7. Also, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.
8. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.
9. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief.
BOARD DETERMINATION AND DIRECTED ACTION
After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the examiners Discussion and Recommendation, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the length and quality of the applicants 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.
SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:
Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 30 January 2015 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify: NA
Character Change: 5 No Change: 0
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) AR20140003150
Page 6 of 6 pages
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)
CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE