IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 22 January 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20130010675 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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, he was discharged because of weight control issues. He has been told since by competent Army personnel that weight control is a failure on the unit leadership and not on the Soldier. He knows several veterans that were discharged because of weight issues and all of them have received an honorable discharge. He feels that his commanding officer forced a general discharge on him because his weight issues revealed the commander’s failures as a leader and he wanted to punish him as much as possible. He feels that he should have been discharged under AR 635-200, chapter 18. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 6 June 2013 b. Discharge received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 2 May 2003 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Unsatisfactory Performance, AR 635-200, Chapter 13, JHJ, RE 3 e. Unit of assignment: Co B, 1-87 Inf Bn, Fort Drum, NY f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 21 June 2000, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 10 months, 12 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 10 months, 12 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10, Infantryman m. GT Score: 120 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (011001-020406) q. Decorations/Awards: ASR, CIB r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: None u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 June 2000, for a period of four years. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and was a high school graduate. He served a combat tour in Afghanistan; however, the record is absent of any awards or commendations received during his tour of duty. His DD Form 214 reflects the award of an ASR and a CIB. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature. 2. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, as a result of unsatisfactory performance, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 show a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JHJ and a reentry (RE) code of 3. 3. The applicant’s record does not show any evidence or actions under the UCMJ or unauthorized absences or time lost. 4. The applicant was separated on 2 May 2003, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, (unsatisfactory performance), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, with an SPD code of JHJ and an RE code of 3. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: There are no counseling statements or UCMJ actions in the record. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 4 June 2013; a DD Form 214; and a statement of support from a senior defense counsel. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None were submitted with the application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. 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 military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process. 3. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 4. The applicant contends that he was discharged because of weight control issues and his discharge was based on failure of the unit leadership. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. There is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's contention. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. 5. The applicant contends that he knows several veterans that were discharged based on weight issues and received honorable discharges. However, the method in which another Soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. 6. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record. 7. Therefore, based on the available evidence and the presumption of government regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 22 January 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 2 No Change: 3 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) AR20130010675 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1