IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 26 September 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140010479 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service, and as a result, it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable, and voted not to change it. 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 upgrade of general, under Honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was inequitable and too harsh. The applicant contends that the reason for his separation was based solely on his academic performance; however, he passed each one on the retest. He further contends that he never received any disciplinary actions and his Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT) was above average. The applicant states he would like to reenlist back into the Army. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 12 June 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 5 January 2011 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unsatisfactory Performance, Chapter 13 AR 635-200, JHJ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: D Company, 577th Engineer Battalion 1st Brigade, Fort Leonard Wood, MO f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 14 January 2010/4 years, 21 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 11 months, 22 days h. Total Service: 11 months, 22 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: None m. GT Score: 92 n. Education: Bachelor’s Degree o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: None r. Administrative Separation Board: N/A s. Performance Ratings: N/A t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 January 2010, for a period of 4 years and 21 weeks. He was 27 years old at the time of entry and a college graduate. He completed 11 months and 22 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s service record shows that on 9 December 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance specifically for: * 19 October 2010, failed the Shop Operations annex written test with a 70 percent * 25 October 2010, failed the Basic Electricity annex written test with a 74 percent * 2 November 2010, failed the Engines annex written test with a 72.5 percent * 17 November 2010, failed the Hydraulic annex written test with a 76 percent 2. The unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 9 December 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected not to submit a statement on his 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 9 December 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant was not transferred to the US Army Reserve Control Group. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 5 January 2011, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 6. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: DD Form 214, dated 5 January 2011, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 13, AR 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance, with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions, SPD code of JHJ, and a RE code of 3. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided the following in support of his application: a. Sumter School District Paraprofessional/Classified Employee Performance Evaluation, for evaluation period Spring 2012. b. Two Sumter School District Assistant Coach Evaluation Forms, dated 30 October 2012, and 13 May 2013. c. Sumter School District Head Coach Evaluation Form, dated 6 March 2013. d. Sumter School District Paraprofessional/Classified Employee Performance Evaluation, for evaluation period Spring 2012. e. Sumter School District Administrative/Professional Staff Performance Evaluation, dated 12 April 2013. f. Character Letter, dated 21 May 2013, written by LaWhan Jordan, School Counselor of Chestnut Oaks Middle School. Character letter offers high recommendation for applicant, without reservation. g. Character Letter, dated 22 May 2013, written by Mrs. Pamela Davis Rhodes, SCTAP Master Teacher. Character letter states the applicant has built positive relationships with both his fellow colleagues and his students. As a colleague and coach, the applicant presented material with such ease and excitement that set the tone for learning in the classroom and in the athletic arena. The letter further states applicant is, quite simply, one of the most remarkable people that she has ever worked with and met. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states, since his separation, he has begun graduate coursework, and is a few courses from graduating. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. 2. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. 2. After examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to honorable for the following reasons: * 12 October 2010, passed diagnostic APFT, overall score of 232, improved by 20 points * 20 October 2010, passed Shop Operations annex written retest with a 80 percent * 26 October 2010, passed the Basic Electricity annex written test with a 90 percent * 3 November 2010, passed the Engines annex written retest with a 100 percent 3. This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of unsatisfactory performance. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service may now be too harsh, and as a result, it is inequitable. 4. The record shows the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 5. In view of the foregoing, it appears the characterization of the discharge is now inequitable and it is recommended the Board grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 26 September 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 5 No Change: 0 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: Yes Change Characterization to: Honorable 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) AR20140010479 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1