IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 June 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140008942 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 believes his discharge was improper because Army Directive 2012-07 states that “Commanders will process for separation all Soldiers who are (5) convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence a second time during his/her career.” He states, he was never convicted of driving while intoxicated for a second time. He contends he never went to court or received a traffic ticket for the incident. He states he was told he would not be charged with DUI but was soon notified of the command’s intent to separate him from the Army. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 21 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 6 April 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHB (Rear), 4th Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment, APO AE f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 15 October 2008/6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years, 5 months, 22 days h. Total Service: 11 years, 11 months, 28 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 010409-010610, NA RA, 010611-040610, HD Break, 040611-050221, NA RA, 050222-070320, HD RA, 070321-091014, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-5 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92Y20, Unit Supply Specialist m. GT Score: 100 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Korea, SWA p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (100316-101113) q. Decorations/Awards: AAM-6, AGCM-3, ACM-CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-2, NATO MDL r. Administrative Separation Board: Yes s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: After a break in service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 February 2005, for a period of 3 years and 2 weeks. He was 23 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Afghanistan and Korea, earned six AAMs and completed a total of 11 years, 11 months and 28 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving in Germany. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 9 October 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense); specifically for operating a vehicle while drunk on 26 February 2012. 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 16 October 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. The applicant submitted a statement on his own behalf. On 3 December 2012, the applicant again consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving an honorable characterization of service. 4. On 14 December 2012, the separation authority disapproved the conditional waiver request and directed the applicant’s case to an administrative separation board. 5. On 30 January 2013, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board. 6. On 11 February 2013, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 7. On 22 March 2013, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 8. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 6 April 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), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3. 9. The applicant’s service record contains no evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Several negative counseling statements, dated between 4 June 2008 and 3 October 2012, for recommendation for separation, DUI, previous unreported convictions, driving while drinking, referral for mental health evaluation, forgery, and failure to report a serious incident. 2. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 7 September 2012, reflects the application had no obvious impairments, no psychiatric diagnosis, and a negative screening for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. 3. Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 23 March 2012, for operating a motor vehicle on a public road while drunk. 4. A MP Report reflects on 26 February 2012, the applicant was the subject of an investigation for driving while intoxicated. As a note, the report indicated the applicant had a previous offense of driving under the influence on 29 August 2009 in Fort Knox, KY. 5. A GOMOR, dated 15 October 2009, for being apprehended for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated on Fort Knox, KY. 6. Article 15, dated 13 June 2008, for falsely making the signature of CPT M on 4 June 2008. The punishment consisted of 10 days extra duty (CG). 7. Five NCOERs covering the period of 1 October 2008 through 6 April 2013. The applicant was rated as “Among the Best,” “Fully Capable” and “Marginal” by his raters. He received a “2/1,” “2/2,” “3/2,”and two “5/5” ratings for his “Overall Performance/Overall Potential” from his senior raters. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 15 May 2014, a DD Form 214, administrative separation board proceedings, dated 11 February 2013, three letters of support, and Army Directive 2012-07, dated 13 March 2012, POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any in support of 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’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. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by a memorandum of reprimand, a GOMOR, a CG Article 15, a military police report for driving while intoxicated and several negative counseling statements. 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 improper based on Army Directive 2012-07, paragraph 3b(5). However, sufficient evidence was found by an administrative separation board that the applicant operated a vehicle while impaired or drunk and recommended his discharge from the Army. The separation authority approved the findings of the board and directed the applicant’s discharge. Army Directive 2012-07 did not prevent the applicant’s chain of command from initiating separation action based on other reasons authorized by existing administrative separation regulations. 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. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 7. 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: 12 June 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) AR20140008942 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1