IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 13 March 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140005140 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the examiner’s 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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. 2. The applicant did not submit any issues of equity or propriety to be considered by the Board. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 14 March 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 5 April 2002 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 529th Ordnance Company, APO AE 09112 f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 23 June 1999, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 8 months, 13 days h. Total Service: 11 years, 8 months, 24 days i. Lost time: None j. Previous Discharges: RA (900712-940110)/HD RA (940111-960512)/HD RA (960513-971106)/HD RA (971107-990622)/HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-6 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 54B10, Chemical Operations Specialist/31U10, Signal Support Systems Specialist m. GT Score: 100 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Germany/Korea x2 (910102-920101, 960829-970820) p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, AAM-3, AGCM-3, NDSM, NPDR-2, ASR, OSR-2 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 Regular Army on 12 July 1990, for a period of 4 years. He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a HS Graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31U10, Signal Support Systems Specialist. He reenlisted on 11 January 1994, for a period of 3 years and was 22 years old at the time. He subsequently trained in and was awarded MOS, 54B10, Chemical Operations Specialist. He reenlisted on 13 May 1996, for a period of 2 years and was 24 years old at the time. He reenlisted on 7 November 1997, for a period of 2 years and was 25 years old. His last enlistment on 23 June 1999 was for 4 years and he was 28 years old. His record shows he served in Germany and Korea, he earned several awards including two ARCOMs, three AAMs, and three AGCMs; and he achieved the rank of SSG/E-6. He was serving in Germany when his discharge was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 13 March 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense. Specifically for the following offenses: a. driving while intoxicated, b. willfully disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer, and c. wrongfully using marijuana. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 8 February 2002, 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, 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 and senior commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 29 March 2002, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 5 April 2002, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3. 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, 9 August 2001, for driving while drunk (010522), the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 (suspended) and forfeiture of $250 pay for two months, (FG). 2. An Article 15 dated, 9 February 2001, disobeyed a lawful command from a superior officer; dates are illegible; the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-5, forfeiture of $965 pay, the number of months is illegible, extra duty for 30 days, restriction for 30 days and an oral reprimand, (FG). 3. On 28 January 2002, the suspension of punishment of a reduction to E-4 was vacated for the new offense of driving while drunk (011215). 4. A Initial/Final Report (SIR/CIR), dated 15 December 2001, indicating the applicant was driving while impaired. 5. Alcoholic Influence Report dated 15 December 2001. 6. He received several counseling statements dated between 26 January 2001 and 17 December 2001, for disobeying a direct order, missing formation, attending an appointment while under the influence of alcohol, and driving while intoxicated. 7. The record contains a positive urinalysis report coded IU (Inspection Unit), dated 17 January 2001, for THC. 8. He received four successful NCOERs covering the period from February 1999 through July 2001 and marginal report for the period from August 2001 through November 2001. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 149 in lieu of DD Form 293. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any information with his 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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. 2. After examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, and the issues submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's discharge to general, under honorable conditions for the following reasons: Overall length and quality of the applicant’s service: The applicant served 2 years, 8 months, and 13 days of his current 4 year enlistment contract, he had a total service of 11 years, 8 months, and 24 days and thus the preponderance of his service was honorable. He earned several awards including two ARCOMs, three AAMs, and three AGCMs. 3. This recommendation was made after full consideration of all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh and as a result, it is inequitable. 4. In view of the foregoing, the analyst recommends the Board grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. However, because of the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. 5. The applicant did not submit any issues of equity or propriety to be considered by the Board. BOARD DETERMINATION AND DIRECTED ACTION After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the examiner’s Discussion and Recommendation, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 13 March 2015 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) AR20140005140 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1