IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 July 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140009350 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 characterization of service to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he desires to expand his job opportunities and an upgrade of his discharge would allow him a better chance at obtaining the job he wants. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 23 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 21 May 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 135th Quartermaster Company, Fort Stewart, GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 23 August 2010/3 years, 27 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 8 months, 29 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 8 months, 29 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic m. GT Score: 97 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 August 2010, for a period of 3 years and 27 weeks. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. His record is void of any significant awards of valor and achievement; however, he completed 2 years, 8 months, and 29 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Stewart, GA. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 23 April 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct; specifically for; receiving a CG Article 15 for missing formation and a GOMOR for driving under the influence. 2. Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 24 April 2013, 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. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 7 May 2013, the separation waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on 21 May 2013, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, pattern of misconduct, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record contains no evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Article 15, dated 4 April 2013, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty x4, (120813, 130205, 130213, and 130214) and disobeyed a lawful order (120430). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-2 (suspended), forfeiture of $396 pay (suspended) and 14 days extra duty (CG). 2. An Incident Report, dated 10 November 2012, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation, in that the applicant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. 3. Several negative counseling statements, dated between 5 June 2012 and 19 February 2013, for driving under the influence, failure to be at his appointed place of duty, reduction in grade for misconduct, dereliction of duty, insubordination, failure to provide a contact number, failure to follow sick call procedures, failure to be present for CQ duty, initiation of separation action, disobeying a direct order, failure to request assistance after drinking, failure to make dental appointment, and initial counseling. 4. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 8 April 2013, reflects the applicant had no obvious impairments, could appreciate the difference between right and wrong, and had a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. He had a negative screening for Post Traumatic Stress disorder. 5. A GOMOR, dated 7 December 2012, for driving under the influence of alcohol. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 15 May 2014 and a DD Form 214. 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. ANALYST DISCUSSION OF ISSUES: 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, and the issue 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 of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by a CG Article 15, a GOMOR for driving under the influence of alcohol 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 he desires to expand his job opportunities and an upgrade of his discharge would allow him a better chance at obtaining the job he wants. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 5. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 22 July 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) AR20140009350 Page 2 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1