IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 May 2013 CASE NUMBER: AR20130000747 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from general under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge is inequitable because it is based on a single isolated event that occurred in 35 months of service with no other adverse actions or administrative actions. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 9 January 2013 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 9 May 2011 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 4th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team (Rear) (Provisional), 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Polk, LA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 22 May 2008, 3 years, 25 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 11 months, 12 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 11 months, 12 days i. Time Lost: 6 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 91F10, Small Arms/Artillery m. GT Score: 127 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR 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 22 May 2008 for a period of 3 years and 25 weeks. He was 18 years old at the time of entry, a high school graduate, earned an AAM; and completed 2 years, 11 months, and 18 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 13 April 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 being convicted for 7 counts of attempted theft, confined by the Civilian Authority from (110113 - 110208). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 14 April 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not 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 2 May 2011, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on 9 May 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 unit commander’s notification memorandum makes note that the applicant was absent from his unit from 13 January 2011 to 8 February 2011. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. A negative counseling statement dated 10 February 2011, for being tried and convicted by civil authorities for the crime of attempted theft. 2. Thirty – Sixth Judicial District Court document outlining the conditions of the applicant’s probation, dated 13 June 2011. 3. A DA Form 4187(Personnel Action) dated, 25 January 2011 that shows the applicant was confined by civilian authorities (CCA) from 13 January 2011 to 8 February 2011. The total time lost was 6 days, which is not reflected on the DD Form 214, block 29. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293 and a DD Form 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None were provided by the applicant. 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 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. 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 Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s record of service was marred by a civil conviction for violating 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 applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. 4. The applicant contends the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his entire Army career. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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: 15 May 2013 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No 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: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change 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) AR20130000747 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1