IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 18 March 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140006537 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 his discharge was unfair due to the information that was placed in his packet at the time of discharge. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 10 April 2014 b. Discharge received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 11 July 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHB, 2d Bn, 17th FA Rgt, JBLM, WA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 1 October 2010, 3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 9 months, 11 days h. Total Service: 5 years, 1 month i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: RA-080612-100930/HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 25U10, Signal Support Systems Specialist m. GT Score: 91 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia p. Combat Service: Iraq (091109-100615) and Afghanistan (120415- 130115) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-3, AAM, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-w/CS, ICM-w/CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: No t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 June 2008, for a period of 4 years. On 1 October 2010, he reenlisted for a period of 3 years. He was 20 years old at the time of reenlistment and a high school graduate. His record indicates he served in Iraq and Afghanistan; achieved the rank of SPC/E-4; and earned several awards to include three ARCOMs and the AAM. He was serving at JBLM, WA when separation action was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 13 June 2013, 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 (serious offense). Specifically for the following offenses: a. failing to obey a lawful general order by failing to maintain positive control of his assigned weapon while deployed (121107), b. being dropped from the Warriors Leader's Course for cheating by submitting work that had been turned in by a previous student, a violation of the honor code and dereliction of duty under Article 92, UCMJ (120309); as a result of this action a bar to reenlistment was imposed, and c. driving while under the influence of alcohol as demonstrated by his blood/alcohol content of .09 percent (130412). 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 17 June 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and indicated his intentions to submit a statement on his own 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 commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. 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 11 July 2013, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), 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. Bar to Reenlistment Certificate dated 8 June 2012. 2. Summarized Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ, imposed on 8 November 2012, for wrongfully failing to maintain positive personal control of his weapon (121023). The punishment consisted of extra duty for 10 days. 3. Service School Academic Evaluation Report dated 26 July 2011, for the Warrior Leader Course #010-11 (600-C44), which indicates the applicant was dismissed from the course for violating academy policy by using a former student's evaluated materials. 4. Service School Academic Evaluation Report dated 14 March 2012, for the Warrior Leader Course #005-12 (600-C44), which indicates the applicant was dismissed from the course due to excessive tardiness. 5. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment, dated 23 April 2013, which shows the applicant was command referred as a result of an Article 15 October 2012 and being arrested for DWI (130413). 6. Several negative counseling statements dated between 9 April 2012 and 5 June 2013, for failing to complete the Warrior Leaders Course, intention to impose a Bar to Reenlistment due to failure to complete an Army professional development school, failing to follow a lawful order, failure to overcome a bar to reenlistment, and an off post ticket for driving under the influence. 7. A DA Form 3822, Report of Mental Status Evaluation, showing no Axis I, II or III diagnoses; the applicant being screened for both PTSD and mTBI with results being negative; the applicant being assessed at ASAP; and, the applicant both meeting retention standards and being cleared for administrative action in accordance with AR 635-200. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293 and a copy of his DD Form 214 for 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 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 misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by his misconduct of driving under the influence of alcohol. 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 his discharge was unfair. 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 his discharge was unfair. In fact, the applicant’s Summarized Article 15 and numerous negative counseling statements justify reasons for a discharge. The applicant’s statement alone does 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. 5. 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. 6. 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: 18 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) AR20140006537 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1