IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 July 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140010202 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 fully honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he had not exhausted all means of rehabilitation prior to his discharge. He contends since his discharge, he has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which may explain the reason for his misconduct. He states his actions were isolated incidents with six months or more separating each incident. He contends he was young and immature at the time and this contributed to the misconduct as well. He notes his deployment to Iraq and contends his overall service, conduct and efficiency was good. He desires to use his Montgomery GI Bill to further his education. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 9 June 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 3 February 2007 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 529th Ordnance Company, Vilseck, Germany f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 28 October 2004/3 years, 25 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 3 months, 6 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 3 months, 6 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 63B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic m. GT Score: 105 n. Education: GED o. Overseas Service: SWA, Germany p. Combat Service: Iraq (051112-061101) q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR, OSR 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 28 October 2004, for a period of 3 years and 25 weeks. He was 19 years old at the time of entry. He served in Germany and Iraq, and did not earn any significant awards or decorations. He completed 2 years, 3 months, and 6 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving in Vilseck, Germany. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On an unknown date, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. Specifically, for falsifying a government document, failing to obey an order or regulation, being noncompliant with procedural rules, disrespecting a NCO, indebtedness, and several occurrences of failure to report to duty. 2. Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On an unknown date, the applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in 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 30 January 2007, the separation authority 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 3 February 2007, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Article 15, dated 22 September 2005, for dereliction in the performance of his duties when he willfully failed to utilize a latrine to urinate. The punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty and restriction (Summarized). 2. Article 15, dated 3 March 2006, for dereliction in the performance of his duties when he failed to stay awake on guard duty. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $333 pay per month for one month, and 14 days of extra duty (CG). 3. Four negative counseling statements, dated between 19 April 2006 and 8 August 2006, for insubordinate conduct, failing to obey a lawful order x 2 (060419 and 060617), and disrespecting a NCO x 3 (060617, 060618, and 060808). 4. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 1 December 2006, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process, was mentally responsible, and was able to distinguish between right and wrong. 5. DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate), dated 16 July 2006, reflects the applicant was barred from reenlisting in the military. The applicant elected not to appeal the bar to reenlistment certificate. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided an undated DD 293, a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review, a self-authored statement, seven character statements of support, and a Veterans Administration (VA) rating decision, dated 2 April 2014. 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, 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 of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by two Article 15s for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a bar to reenlistment certificate, and four 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 had not exhausted every means of rehabilitation before he was discharged. However, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. 5. The applicant contends the incident that caused his discharge were only isolated incidents over a six month period. Although a single 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 a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 6. The applicant contends that he was young and immature at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 7. The applicant contends the VA has granted him a service connected disability for PTSD. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 1 December 2006, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant’s chain of command determined that although he was suffering from PTSD, he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully. 8. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, 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. Further, the Board does not grant upgrade of discharges in order to gain access to veterans benefits. 9. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 10. 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: 23 July 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No Counsel: Yes 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: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change 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) AR20140010202 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1