BOARD DATE: 4 February 2015

CASE NUMBER: AR20140003560

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.


1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2. The applicant states, in effect, he was treated unfairly and his discharge was unjust because he did not do anything wrong. The applicant contends, he wrote an apology letter to his chain of command in an attempt to move forward with his Army career; however, the chain of command chose to discharge him.


a. Application Receipt Date: 21 February 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 8 August 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200
Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: A Company, 101st Brigade Support Battalion
1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, KS
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 22 March 2010/3 years, 23 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 4 months, 17 days
h. Total Service: 3 years, 4 months, 17 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist
m. GT Score: 92
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: Korea
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: N/A
s. Performance Ratings: N/A
t. Counseling Statements: Yes
u. Prior Board Review: No

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 March 2010, for a period of 3 years and 23 weeks. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Korea and completed 3 years, 4 months, and 17 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Riley, Kansas.

1. The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates that on 11 July 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason misconduct (serious offense). Specifically for the following offenses:

a. failing to go to appointed place of duty on divers occasions (between 111212 and 130422),
b. smoking inside the barracks room (120621),
c. disobeyed an order from a noncommissioned officer (130419), and
d. lying to a senior noncommissioned officer

2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3. On 18 July 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and elected not to submit 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 26 July 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 discharged from the Army on 8 August 2013, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (serious offense), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and a RE code of 3.

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


1. An Article 15, dated 3 July 2012, with intent to deceive, made a false official statement to a senior NCO (120601). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $835.00 pay (suspended), 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG).

2. An Article 15, dated 2 May 2013, failure to go at the time prescribed to the appointed place of duty on two occasions (130313 and 130415) and failure to obey a lawful order (130419). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $353.00 pay, 14 days of extra duty and restriction (CG).

3. Several negative counseling statements, dated between 12 December 2011 and 22 April 2013, for smoking in the barracks room, failure to obey barracks policy, violating AR 670-1, missed medical and ASAP appointments, failure to obey an order or regulation, failure to be at prescribed time at the appointed place of duty, failure to inform chain of command, aided a post-restricted Soldier off post, giving a false statement to a senior NCO, insubordinate conduct towards a commissioned officer, warrant officer, and NCO, and failure to obey a lawful order.

4. Disqualification Memorandum for the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM), dated 7 January 2013, issued by the company commander, informing the applicant that he had been disqualified based on his receipt of an Article 15 in July 2012.

5. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 16 May 2013, reflects that the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. In Section V, the applicant received a diagnosis (Axis I) adjustment disorder with depressed mood per AHLTA history. Furthermore, in Section VIII, it was noted that the service member had been screened for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain injury. These conditions are either not present or, if present, did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board.


1. The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 18 February 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review.

2. A character letter, date unknown, written by applicants former NCO, SGT C. The letter attested to the applicants work ethic and dedication to completing all tasks given. As a note, SGT C indicated that he was not assigned to the unit at the time the applicant committed the misconduct.


None was provided with the 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.


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 a fully honorable discharge. The applicants record of service was marred by two Articles 15 and numerous counseling statements 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 the discharge was unjust because he was treated unfairly and did not do anything wrong. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discriminated. In fact, the applicants two Articles 15 and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct. The applicants statements alone do not overcome the governments presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.

5. The applicant contends, he wrote an apology letter to his chain of command in an attempt to move forward with his Army career; however, the chain of command chose to discharge him.
The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.

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.


Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 4 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

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) AR20140003560

Page 6 of 6 pages