IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 5 December 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140000686 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 rejoin the Army. He believes he was unfairly discharged. He contends he had an honorable record and was not given a chance to redeem himself for his actions because of problems between him and his ex-wife. He was denied the opportunity to just get out of the Army when he was supposed to and was forced to be chaptered. He contends he still receives all his benefits as if he had received an honorable discharge except his characterization of service is general, under honorable conditions. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 4 January 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 10 May 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 702d BSB (R)(P), 4th SBCT (R)(P), JBLM, WA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 16 December 2009, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 4 months, 25 days h. Total Service: 9 years, 9 months, 17 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: USAR-030721-060222/NA RA-060223-070404/HD RA-070405-091215/HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-5 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist m. GT Score: 86 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia, Korea, Hawaii p. Combat Service: Iraq (090910-100801) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-3, AAM, MUC, AGCM-2, ICM-w/CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NPDR, ASR, OSR-3 r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve on 21 July 2003, for a period of 8 years. On 22 February 2006, he was discharged pending enlistment in the Regular Army. On 23 February 2006, he enlisted in the Regular for a period of 3 years. He was 20 years old at the time of enlistment and a high school graduate. On 5 April 2007 he reenlisted for a period of 4 years and on 16 December 2009, he reenlisted again for another 4 years. His record indicates he served a period of combat in Iraq; received several awards to include three ARCOMs, the AAM, and two AGCMs; and achieved the rank of SGT/E-5. He was serving at JBLM, WA when his discharge was initiated. He completed 9 years, 9 months, and 17 days of total military service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 3 April 2013, 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 a pattern of misconduct. Specifically for the following offenses: a. failing to obey a lawful written order from a commissioned officer by wrongfully driving on post (121202), b. being drunk and disorderly (130315), and c. wrongfully using his Government Travel Charge Card in the amount of $390.00 on or about (111110 and 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 6 April 2013, , the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions and indicated he would submit a statement on his behalf which was not found in the record. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 25 April 2013, 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 10 May 2013, 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 does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost during the period of service under review. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Article 15, imposed on 12 January 2012, for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully using his Government Travel Charge Card at Dust Till Dawn Strip Club and Rendezvous Nightclub for a combined amount of $390.00. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $542.00 pay per month for one month (suspended), extra duty for 14 days, and restriction for 14 days (suspended) (CG). 2. Military Police Report, dated 2 December 2012, indicating the applicant was the subject of investigation for failure to obey general order-traffic, driving while license suspended, failure to obey order (post driving revocation) and drunk and disorderly. 3. Memorandum reference revocation of the applicant's driving privileges for five years, dated 2 December 2012. 4. Military Police Report, dated 15 March 2013, indicating the applicant was the subject of investigation for failure to obey order (post driving revocation) and drunk and disorderly. 5. Two negative counseling statements dated 28 November 2011 and 13 March 2013 for misuse of a Government Credit Card and driving while on post privileges were suspended. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293 and a letter of support. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None were 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 an Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, two MP reports, and two negative counseling statements. 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’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceedings were carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the incidents of misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 5. The applicant contends he was unfairly discharged and not afforded the opportunity to redeem himself. 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 unfairly discharged. In fact, the applicant’s Article 15 and negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s 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. 6. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of rejoining the Army. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. 7. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 8. 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. 9. 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: 5 December 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 1 No Change: 4 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) AR20140000686 Page 3 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1