1.	APPLICANT’S NAME:  

	a.	Application Date:  12 June 2014

	b.	Date Received:  19 June 2015

	c.	Counsel:  None

2.   REQUEST, REASON, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION:  The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable.  The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, he was not provided the proper recovery time prior to his APFTs.  However, he passed an APFT on 25 April 2014.  He was also only a few months from his ETS.  He believes he received a GD due to a previous issue but if not for the failed APFT, he would not have been separated.  In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 July 2015, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable.

	(Board member names available upon request.)

3.	DISCHARGE DETAILS:

	a.	Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization:  Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635-200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions

	b.	Date of Discharge:  6 June 2014

	c.	Separation Facts:  

		(1)	Date of Notification of Intent to Separate:  26 March 2014

		(2)	Basis for Separation:  The applicant was informed of the following reasons:  

* failing two consecutive APFTs on 17 October 2013 and 20 November 2013;
* wrongfully using spice;
* wrongfully possessing paraphernalia;
* failing to report; and
* failing to obey orders.

		(3)	Recommended Characterization:  GD

		(4)	Legal Consultation Date:  Waived on 1 April 2014

		(5)	Administrative Separation Board:  No

		(6)	Separation Decision Date/Characterization:  12 May 2014 / GD

4.	SERVICE DETAILS:

	a.	Date/Period of Enlistment:  9 June 2010 / 4 years, 17 weeks


	b.	Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score:  18 / HS Graduate / 105

	c.	Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service:  E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 3 years, 11 months, 28 days
  
	d.	Prior Service/Characterizations:  None / NA
  
	e.	Overseas Service/Combat Service:  Korea / None
  
	f.	Awards and Decorations:  AAM; NDSM; GWOTSM; KDSM; ASR; OSR
  
	g.	Performance Ratings:  No
  
	h.	Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record:  

* FG Article 15, dated 1 May 2013, for wrongfully using spice and possessing paraphernalia (5 December 2012).  The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, 20 days of extra duty and an oral reprimand.
* Numerous negative counseling statements for having drug paraphernalia with residue found in his barracks room; illegally using synthetic cannabinoids; failing to obey a lawful order; being denied block leave; not having the required knowledge or skill set for advancement to sergeant; failing APFTs on multiple occasions; disrespecting an NCO; not being recommended for promotion; failing to complete unit runs; and failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. 
* CID investigation, dated 12 December 2012, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for possession of drug paraphernalia.
* Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard, dated from 3 March 13 through 20 November 2013, indicates four record APFT failures and one record pass.
  
	i.	Lost Time:  None
  
	j.	Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health:  Behavioral health issues noted in Report of Medical Examination, dated 8 April 2013, and in Report of Medical History.  Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 January 2014, indicates a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. 

5.	APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE:  DD Form 214 for service under current review; an individual sick slip, dated 30 October 2013; counseling statement, dated 20 November 2013; Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard, dated 21 February 2014 and 25 April 2014; recommendation for award, dated 16 August 2011; and a veterans’ services cover letter, dated 16 June 2014.

6.	POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  None provided

7.	REGULATORY CITATION(S):  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.  Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases.

8.	DISCUSSION OF ISSUE(S):  The applicant, seeking relief, contends he was not provided the proper recovery time prior to his APFTs but passed an APFT on 25 April 2014.  He was also only a few months from his ETS.  He believes he received a GD due to a previous issue but if not for the failed APFT, he would not have been separated.

His request and contentions were carefully considered.  However, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  His record confirms his 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.  By the unsatisfactory performance, he diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable characterization of service.  

There is also a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discriminated.  In fact, the applicant’s Article 15 action and numerous negative counseling statements justify a serious incident of misconduct and unsatisfactory performance.  His statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no independent corroborating evidence or sufficient evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance was provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.  

In view of the foregoing, 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. 














9.	BOARD ACTION DIRECTED:

	a.	Issue a new DD-214/Issue new Separation Order:  	No

	b.	Change characterization to:  				No Change
	
	c.	Change Reason to:  						No Change

	d.	SPD/RE Code Change to:  					No Change

	e.	Restoration to Grade:  					No Change


Authenticating Officer:




COL, US ARMY
Presiding Official 
Army Discharge Review Board

























Legend:
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  
FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	RE - Reentry	                Honorable Conditions 	
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

AR20140010998

1