IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 May 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140009112 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 characterization from general, under honorable conditions to honorable 2. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during 60 months of service and no other adverse action. He needs an upgrade to receive full VA benefits. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 27 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 3 May 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct (Civil Conviction), AR 635-200, Chapter 14, Section II, JKB, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 203rd Brigade Support Battalion, 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team (Rear) (Provisional), Fort Benning, GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 17 October 2008, 5 years/block 12a on the applicant’s DD Form 214 date entered active duty this period, is incorrect, his initial enlistment date was (070823) and he reenlisted as annotated on the CRD. See current enlistment contract. g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years, 6 months, 17 days h. Total Service: 6 years, 6 months, 17 days i. Lost time: None j. Previous Discharges: USAR (061017-061106/NA IADT (061107-070323)/UNC USAR (070324-080822)/NA RA (070823-081016)/HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 42A10, Human Resources Specialist m. GT Score: 91 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia/Germany p. Combat Service: Iraq (091009-100917) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-CS (2), GWOTSM, ASR, OSR (2), MUC, COA (2) 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 US Army Reserve on 17 October 2006, for a period of 8 years. He was 19 years old at the time of entry and high school graduate. He was ordered to initial active duty training (IADT) on 7 November 2006. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 42A10, Human Resources Specialist; he was released from IADT on 23 March 2007, with an uncharacterized discharge. He was discharged from the Reserve on 22 August 2007; the characterization of service was not in the file. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 August 2007, for a period of 3 years and 2 weeks. He was 20 years old at the time of entry. He maintained his original MOS. He reenlisted on 17 October 2008, for 5 years and he was 21 years old at the time. His record also shows he served a combat tour, earned several awards including an ARCOM, three AAMs, and an AGCM; and he achieved the rank of SPC/E-4. He was serving at Fort Benning, GA when his discharge was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 27 March 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-5, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-conviction by civil court for being convicted of three counts of cruelty to children, battery/family violence and obstruction of a law enforcement officer. 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 2 April 2013, 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, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than honorable 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 commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 15 April 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and voluntarily withdrew his conditional waiver to an administrative separation board, and he did not submit a statement on his behalf. 5. On 17 April 2013, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 6. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 3 May 2013, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, Section II, AR 635-200, for misconduct (civil conviction), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKB and an RE code of 3. 7. The applicant’s service record does not contain any documented evidence of unauthorized absences, time lost or any actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. He received two counseling statements, both dated 29 January 2013 for mental health evaluation and initiation of separation action. 2. Muscogee County Court documents (six pages) dated 24 January 2013, indicating the applicant was guilty on all five offenses and sentenced to ten days in jail. 3. Columbus, Georgia Police Department Incident Report (24 pages), dated 17 January 2013, indicating the applicant was charged with battery (family violence). 4. A Mental Status Evaluation Report, dated 19 February 2013, indicates the applicant had an Axis 1 diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood and alcohol abuse. He was cleared for discharge under Chapter 14. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293 and a DD Form 214. 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’s request for a change to the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining his military record, the issues and documents 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 (civil conviction), the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred three counts of cruelty to children, battery/family violence and obstruction of a law enforcement officer and a negative counseling statement. 3. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. 4. The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during 60 months of service and no other adverse action. Although an isolated incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by an isolated incident provides the basis for a characterization of service. The applicant's isolated incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 5. The applicant further contends he needs an upgrade to receive full benefits. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 6. Furthermore, the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 12c date enter active duty this period is incorrect. If the applicant desires to correct his DD Form 214; he can apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 7. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 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: 27 May 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) AR20140009112 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1