AR20140003508

IN THE CASE OF: Mr.

BOARD DATE: 25 February 2015

CASE NUMBER: AR20140003508
___________________________________________________________________________

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 that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge characterization be upgraded to honorable.

2. The applicant states, in effect, he made a mistake to deal with the stress and chaos of the war. He was kicked out with nothing. He found out that he could not use his GI Bill because of the UOTHC discharge he received. The skills he learned in the Army are not beneficial in his civilian life so, he needs the GI Bill to get a degree and a decent paying job. He contends he have a wife, a five year old son; and, can barely make ends meet. He relies a lot on state aid and a discharge upgrade will help him get back into school and his life on track. It would also help his family because he would not have to borrow money every month to pay rent. He states, he tried to amend his situation by writing a letter to the battalion commander (BN CMD) apologizing and stating the reason why the BN CMD should allow him to remain in the military.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date: 20 February 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 9 August 2011
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: 170th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, APO, AE
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 25 March 2009, 4 years, 25 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 4 months, 15 days
h. Total Service: 2 years, 4 months, 15 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None DEP, 090130-090324/NA
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 91M10, Bradley Fighting Vehicle
m. GT Score: 118
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: SWA
p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (110212-110322)
q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ACM-CS, ASR, GWOTSM
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: None
t. Counseling Statements: Yes
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 March 2009, for a period of 4 years and 25 weeks. He was 19 years old at the time of his enlistment and a high school graduate. When his discharge proceeding were initiated he was serving at Baumholder, Germany. He served a
combat tour in Afghanistan and when discharged had completed over 2 years, 4 months and 15 days of active service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. On 15 June 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense. Specifically for:

a. Apprehended for leaving the Baumholder PX with over 100 dollars worth of goods and,

b. Wrongfully used compressed air.

2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions and advised the applicant of his rights.

3. On 1 July 2011, 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.

4. On 1 July 2011, the separation authority directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions

5. The applicant was separated on 9 August 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. Article 15, dated 15 April 2011, for wrongfully inhaling compressed air on or about
10 December 2010 and 6 March 2011. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of
E-1, forfeiture of $342.00 pay, (suspended), if not vacated before 12 October 2011 and 14 days of extra duty (CG).

2. A negative counseling statement dated 10 March 2011, for wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances while stationed at Camp Alamo, Kabul, Afghanistan.

3. A negative counseling statement dated 31 March 2011, for unlawfully taking property from Baumholder Post Exchange on or about 30 March 2011 and on numerous other occasions; and, the applicants wife shoplifting.

4. An MP Reports dated 5 April 2011, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for larceny of AAFES property worth over $100.00; a violation of Article 121, UCMJ and shoplifting on post.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 5 February 2014 and his DD Form 214.

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.

4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, for misconduct (serious offense).

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 documents 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 misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting fully honorable discharge. The applicants record of service was marred by an Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and two negative counseling statements.

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 misconduct was due to coping with stress. While the applicant may believe his stress at work was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from stress through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.

5. The applicant further contends he would like to have better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment 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.

6. 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: 25 February 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) AR20140003508

Page 6 of 6 pages

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

1