IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 27 February 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140004521 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he would have received an honorable discharge had his leave been approved by his company commander. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 10 March 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 18 February 2003 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unsatisfactory Performance, AR 635-200, Chapter 13, LHJ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: How-Battery, 2d Squadron, 3d Armored Cavalry, Fort Carson, CO f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 17 March 2000 / 3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 11 months, 2 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 11 months, 2 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 13F10, Fire Support Specialist m. GT Score: 109 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Korea p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, OSR r. Administrative Separation Board: N/A s. Performance Ratings: N/A t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 March 2000, for a period of 3 years. He was 17 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Korea and completed 2 years, 11 months, and 2 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Carson, Colorado. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s service record shows on 7 January 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, specifically for: a. failing to be at appointed place of duty at time prescribed on divers occasions (020102), (020108, 020115, 020228, 020311, and 020410), b. derelict in the performance of duty, negligently failed to have accountability of his TA 50 (020404), and c. with intent to defraud and for the procurement of lawful currency, utter a bad check in the amount of $490.00 (011015) 2. The unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 7 January 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected not to submit a statement on his 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 24 January 2003, 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 18 February 2003, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 6. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. An Article 15, dated 11 June 2002, for making a false official statement to 2LT H (020423), disobeying a lawful order on two occasions (020422 and 020423). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $289.00 (suspended), 14 days of extra duty and restriction (CG). 2. Numerous negative counseling statements, dated between 8 January 2002 and 28 October 2002, for missing accountability formations, failure to report, failing the Army Physical Fitness Test, failing to report, failing to maintain accountability of equipment, and failing to maintain personal finances. 3. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 9 April 2002, reflects that the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. 4. DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ) dated 30 July 2002, vacating the suspension of punishment imposed on 11 July 2002, based on the applicant’s offense of breaking restriction on 18 July 2002. 5. Document from the County Court, El Paso County, CO in reference to the applicant and two letters from the District Attorney’s Office with allied documents in reference to the applicant uttering bad checks. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 14 March 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. 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 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 policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. 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. By the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable characterization of service. 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 would have received an honorable discharge had his leave been approved by his company commander. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what he believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. Further, 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. 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: 27 February 2015 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) AR20140004521 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1