IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130020740 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he entered the Army at the age of 17 with no work experience and made some mistakes that he has learned from, now he desires to move on. He goes on to state that it is his dream in life to become a law enforcement officer and he does not want the mistakes he made as a teenager to follow him the rest of his life. He continues by stating that he has led an exceptional life since his discharge and he is asking that his discharge be given a second look and considered for upgrading. 3. The applicant provides no additional documents with his application. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 June 2009 for a period of 3 years and 34 weeks. He successfully completed his training as a Quartermaster/Chemical Equipment Repairer and airborne training and he was transferred to Fort Richardson, Alaska for his first and only assignment. 2. On 5 May 2011, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being disrespectful in language towards a superior noncommissioned officer (NCO). 3. A review of his records shows he was counseled on at least four separate occasions for disobeying a lawful order from a field grade officer, lying to an NCO, and for having females in the barracks twice without signing them in. Additionally, his records indicate that he was apprehended as a passenger in a vehicle that contained a concealed weapon (.45 Caliber Pistol) and a cigar containing marijuana. 4. On 14 October 2011, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. 5. On 17 October 2011, after consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf whereas he requested that he not be discharged and instead be given another chance. He also submitted letters from his parents (active duty E-9 and E-8) requesting that he be given another chance. 6. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 18 November 2011 and directed that he be discharged under honorable conditions. 7. On 28 December 2011, he was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. He had served 2 years, 5 months, and 26 days of active service. 8. On 13 August 2012, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge contending that he was never proven guilty of the accusations against him and although he tried hard to be a good Soldier, he was discharged because a few NCOs did not like him. He also stated that he desired to enlist again to prove himself. After reviewing the available facts and circumstances, the ADRB found that his discharge was both proper and equitable and voted unanimously to deny his request on 11 January 2013. 9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and commission of a serious offense, which includes drug offenses. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 10. Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 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 member's 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. 2. The characterization and the narrative reason for discharge were appropriate when considering all of the facts and circumstances in his case. 3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when considering his involvement in repeated acts of misconduct. His service simply does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge. 4. Therefore, in the absence of evidence showing an error or injustice occurred in his case, there appears to be no basis to grant his request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _____ _ _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130020740 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130020740 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1