IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 20 March 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140007109 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 should be upgraded based on his good service of 5 years and 8 months, which included him achieving the rank of SGT/E-5, a deployment to Iraq, and completing his duties as a supply specialist in a manner that was honorable. He contends after his deployment to Iraq, he was involved in two alcohol-related incidents; one in which he was defending himself, and the other was his fault. He contends that since his discharged, he has found it impossible to secure employment. He believes his discharge has precluded employers from understanding he served honorable, and he is a credible employee. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 11 April 2014 b. Discharge received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 4 August 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: D Co, 302d CS Bn, Camp Casey, AP f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 5 February 2009, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 6 months h. Total Service: 5 years, 8 months, 28 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: RA-061107-090204/HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-5 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist m. GT Score: 84 n. Education: Associate’s Degree o. Overseas Service: Korea, Southwest Asia p. Combat Service: Iraq (081007-090902) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, MUC, ICM-w/CS, NDSM GWOTSM, KDSM, NPDR, 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 7 November 2006, for a period of 3 years and 21 weeks. On 5 February 2009, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years. He was 30 years old at the time of reenlistment, and had an Associate’s Degree. His record indicates he served in Iraq and Korea; achieved the rank of SGT/E-5; and earned several awards to include an ARCOM, AAM, and the AGCM. He was serving in Korea when separation action was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 26 June 2012, 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 pattern of misconduct for being drunk and disorderly (120530), wrongfully breaking curfew (120205), and resisting apprehension by an armed forces policeman (120205). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. The record contains an unsigned election of rights memorandum; however, it appears the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, 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. 4. On 17 July 2012, 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 4 August 2012, 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 a 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. Article 15, imposed on 17 September 2010, for being drunk and disorderly (100530). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of $1035.00 pay per month for two months (suspended), extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days (suspended) (FG). 2. Article 15, imposed on 16 March 2012, for breaking curfew, resisting being apprehended by an armed forces policeman, and for being drunk and disorderly (120205). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of $1133.00 pay per month for two months (suspended), extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days (FG). 3. A Military Police Report dated 7 June 2010, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for simple assault and assault consummated by a battery. 4. A Military Police Report dated 6 February 2012, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for failure to obey an order or regulation (curfew), and disorderly conduct. 5. Two NCOER's covering the period of 5 February 2010 through 4 February 2012. The applicant was rated overall as "Fully Capable." 6. A negative counseling statement dated 7 February 2012, for failure to obey order or regulation (curfew violation) and disorderly conduct (drunkenness). EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, a copy of his reenlistment contract, and copies of Articles 15, dated 17 September 2010, and 16 March 2012. 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 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 two Articles 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 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 that he had good service which included 5 years and 8 months, achieving the rank of SGT/E-5, and a deployment to Iraq. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that 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 as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct or by the negative counseling statement and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 5. Furthermore, by regulation, an UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct. It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a general, under honorable conditions discharge instead of the normal under other than honorable conditions discharge. However, his misconduct clearly diminished his overall record of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 6. The applicant contends his current characterization of service has precluded employers from understanding he served honorable and he is a credible employee. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 7. 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. 8. 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: 20 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) AR20140007109 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1