IN THE CASE OF: Mr.
BOARD DATE: 23 January 2015
CASE NUMBER: AR20140003249
Board Determination and Directed Action
After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the characterization of service was too harsh based on the overall length and quality of the applicant’s service, to include his combat service and awards, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant 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 general, under honorable conditions discharge characterization to honorable.
2. The applicant states, in effect, he desires to use his education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill. He believes his service was honorable however, after returning from deployment to Iraq, he was not the same person. He admits to getting in a high speed chase with police but the adrenaline rush made him feel like he was in a combat zone. He states, no one was injured and he stopped a few minutes later. He was issued a traffic citation for evading the police. He states, after informing his chain of command of the incident, he was told to keep doing the right thing and he could get past it. However, after moving to a different platoon he was informed he would be separated from the military for the traffic violation. He believes it was unfair to discharge him simply for a traffic violation.
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:
a. Application Receipt Date: 18 February 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 18 October 2011
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200,
Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: Company D, 1-68th Armor Regiment, Fort
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 10 January 2011/NIF
g. Current Enlistment Service: 9 months, 9 days
h. Total Service: 3 years, 2 months, 14 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 19K10, M1 Armor Crewman
m. GT Score: 106
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: SWA
p. Combat Service: Iraq (100321-110301)
q. Decorations/Awards: ICM-2CS, ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR,
r. Administrative Separation Board: NA
s. Performance Ratings: NA
t. Counseling Statements: Yes
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 August 2008, for a period of 3 years and 17 weeks. He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He reenlisted on 10 January 2011, for a unspecified period of time. He served in Iraq and earned an ARCOM. He completed 3 years, 2 months, and 14 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Carson, CO.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. On 31 August 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of intent to separate him from the military. However, the record is void of the notification memorandum. Of note, the unit commanders report stated the applicant was being separated for
fleeing and eluding police on 8 May 2011.
2. Based on available evidence in the applicants service record, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
3. On 29 September 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in 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 5 October 2011, 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 on 18 October 2011, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, 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. A MP Report, dated 8 May 2011, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for speeding (on post), reckless driving and eluding a police officer.
2. Two negative counseling statements, dated 9 May 2011 and 23 June 2011, for substandard performance and speeding violations.
3. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 August 2011, reflects the applicant had no obvious impairments, was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, and had a negative screening for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and mild Traumatic Brain Injury.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:
The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 7 February 2014, a self-authored statement, two letters of support, 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.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
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, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge to honorable for the following reasons:
a. Length and quality of service: The applicant served 3 years, 2 months, and 14 days of active duty service, thus the preponderance of his service was honorable and there is no other derogatory information in the applicants service record. He had recently reenlisted when the misconduct occurred.
b. The record confirms the applicant received an ARCOM which was for a tour in combat.
3. This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the applicants faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct. 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 that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, 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.
5. In view of the foregoing, it appears the characterization of the discharge is now inequitable and it is recommended the Board grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable.
SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:
Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 23 January 2015 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify, NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA
Character Change: 4 No Change: 1
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) AR20140003249
Page 5 of 5 pages
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)
CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE