IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 15 December 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140001394 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 to upgrade the characterization of his service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable. 2. The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, he was a motivated, great, and outstanding Soldier, until he went through a very stressful difficult period with unfair treatment by a sergeant who continuously made him feel worthless which led to his current discharge about six months prior to completing his enlistment contract. He wants to have a real education—he enlisted to receive his college education. He received a 70 percent disability for anxiety and stress. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 15 January 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 6 February 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14 Paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 25 Transportation Company, 25th ID, Schofield, HI f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 8 April 2009, 3 years, 19 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years 9 months, 29 days h. Total Service: 2 years 9 months, 29 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 88M10, Motor Transport Operator m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Hawaii p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 April 2009, for a period of 3 years and 19 weeks. He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M10, Motor Transport Operator. He served in Hawaii. His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. He completed 2 years, 9 months, and 29 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature. 2. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 6 February 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKA and a reentry (RE) code of 3. 3. The applicant’s available record does not show any recorded actions under the UCMJ, unauthorized absences or time lost. However, he was separated as a PV2/E-2 and the action that caused his reduction is not contained in the service record. 4. On 24 January 2012, HQDA, USAG-Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, HI, Orders Number 024-0006, discharged the applicant from the Army, effective 6 February 2012. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: There are no counseling statements available. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided DD Form 214 for service under current review; VA decision, dated 7 February 2012; four certificates of training, dated 25 March 2011, 9 September 2010, 9 July 2010, and 5 March 2011; certificate of achievement, dated 14 August 2010; certification of participation, dated 3-25 August 2011; three 300 APFTs, dated 5 October 2010, 6 April 2010, and 19 November 2009; Sharpshooter scorecard, dated 5 January 2010; and five certificates of completion, dated 22 September 2009, 5 March 2011, 9 February 2011, 25 April 2011, and 8 December 2011. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant provided none. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 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. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. 5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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, and 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 not authenticated by the applicant's signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. 3. The DD Form 214 also indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b by reason of a pattern of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 4. The applicant's contentions about being treated unfairly and having medical issues for which he received a disability rating from the VA were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. 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. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would 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. 6. The applicant has expressed his desire to have the benefits of the GI Bill. 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. Further, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities, or obtaining educational benefits. 7. The applicant contends that he had good service which included receiving several 300 scores on the APFT and successfully completing several trainings. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his prior to any incidents that may have caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge at this time. 8. Therefore, based on the available evidence and the government presumption of 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: 15 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) AR20140001394 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1