IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 10 December 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140000679 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to receive higher education. He contends after six to eight months his discharge should be upgraded based on his three years of service. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 2 January 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 9 February 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 293rd MP Co, Fort Stewart, GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 20 January 2009, 3 years and 21weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 12 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 12 days i. Time Lost: 4 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92G10, Food Service Specialist m. GT Score: 113 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia p. Combat Service: Iraq (091230-100725) q. Decorations/Awards: AAM, ICM-w/CS, NDSM, ASR, OSR 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 20 January 2009, for a period of 3 years and 21 weeks. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. His record indicates he served in Iraq; earned several awards to include the AAM; and achieved the rank of SPC/E-4. He was serving at Fort Stewart, GA when his discharge was initiated. He completed a total of 3 years and 12 days of active military service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 18 January 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct. Specifically for the following offenses: a. receiving an Article 15 for disobeying a noncommissioned officer and failing to report (110525), and b. receiving an Article 15 for four charges of failure to report, one charge of AWOL, one charge of disobeying a noncommissioned officer, and one charge of falsifying an official statement (111121). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 18 January 2012, the applicant waived his right to consult 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. The record contains an unsigned memorandum, dated 25 January 2012, which indicates the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 9 February 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant's record indicates four days of time lost for being AWOL from 20 October 2011 until his return on 24 October 2011. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Article 15, imposed on 25 May 2011, for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (110316) and failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (110321). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $429.00 pay (suspended), and extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG). 2. Article 15, imposed on 21 November 2011, for going AWOL (111020-111024), failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 4 (110719, 111017, 111018, and 111019), disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (111018), and making a false statement (111010). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $733.00 pay per month for two months, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG). EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293 and a self-authored letter. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None was provided 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 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, 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 pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by two Articles 15 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 applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. 4. The applicant contends he had three good years of service and deserves an honorable characterization. However, by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of pattern of misconduct. It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. 5. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to receive higher education. However, 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 record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 7. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 10 December 2014 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) AR20140000679 Page 5 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1