AR20140003165

IN THE CASE OF: Mr.

BOARD DATE: 6 May 2015

CASE NUMBER: AR20140003165
___________________________________________________________________________

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

2. He states, in effect, he would like to use his GI Bill to further his education, be successful in the future, and qualify for jobs he has applied for if he had an honorable discharge.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date: 18 February 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 27 June 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct, (Serious Offense), AR 635-200,
Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: A Company, 3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry (Airborne),
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 27 October 2010, 3 years, 21 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 8 months, 1 day
h. Total Service: 2 years, 8 months, 1 day
i. Lost time: None
j. Previous Discharges: DEP, (100527-101026), NA
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10, Infantryman
m. GT Score: 94
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (111218-121010)
q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, NATOMDL
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: None
t. Counseling Statements: None
u. Prior Board Review: No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 October 2010 for a period of 3 years and 21 weeks. He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Afghanistan (111218-121010). His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. On 10 May 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense, specifically for assaulting his wife on 21 January 2013.

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 13 May 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and submitted a statement on his own behalf. 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 29 May 2013, 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 separated from the Army on 27 June 2013, under Army Regulation
635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ and an RE code of 3.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:

1. Military Police Report, dated 21 January 2013, which indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for aggravated assault using metal tools, tire irons, etc and family abuse with allied documents.

2. Article 15, dated 17 April 2013, for assaulting Ms. W by striking at her with a fire extinguisher (130121) and unlawfully pushing her to the ground (130121) and endangered the safety of a child by assaulting his mother who was carrying the child in her arms at the time of said assault, which such conduct constituted culpable negligence (130121). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $758.00 pay per month for two months (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days. (FG)

3. The record shows that on 26 March 2013, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. The applicant was screened for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and the results were both negative. However, the applicant was diagnosed with an AXIS I: adjustments disorder with disturbance in emotions and conduct and were undergoing counseling and attending an anger management group through FAP.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 12 February 2014 and a copy of his DD 214 for the period of service under review.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY:

The applicant did not provide any with the application.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

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 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. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the serious misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicants record of service was marred by an Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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 would like to have a chance to use his GI Bill so he can further his education and compete for certain jobs to become successful in the future. The eligibility for veteran’s benefits to include educational benefits under the 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. Further, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

5. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.

6. 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: 6 May 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) AR20140003165

Page 5 of 5 pages

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

1