IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 November 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140015816 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, and notwithstanding 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 service, to include, his combat service and awards, that included two ARCOMs and two AAMs, 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 an upgrade his general, under honorable conditions discharge to fully honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he desires to serve in the Army National Guard, and further his career in the military. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 4 September 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 2 June 2011 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense) AR 635-200 Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 4-9th Infantry Regiment, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 3 February 2010/3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 4 months h. Total Service: 4 years, 4 months, 2 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 070111-070130, NA RA, 070201-100202, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 25U10, Signal Support Systems Specialist m. GT Score: 82 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Iraq (071110-080621) (090911-100818) q. Decorations/Awards: ICM-2CS, ARCOM-2, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM GWOTSM, 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 1 February 2007, for a period of 4 years. He was 27 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He reenlisted on 3 February 2010, for a period of 3 years. He served in Iraq and earned two ARCOMs and two AAMs. He completed 4 years, 4 months, and 2 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 24 April 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, by reason of misconduct (serious offense). Specifically for: a. failing to go to 0630 accountability formation x 3 (101201, 101202, and 110125), and b. being drunk on duty x 2 (101201 and 101202). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 25 April 2011, the applicant consulted 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 6 May 2011, 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 2 June 2011, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ, 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. A memorandum, dated 1 December 2010, reflects the unit requested a breathalyzer test for the applicant. The applicant arrived at work smelling of alcohol and blew a .072 BAC on the unit breathalyzer. 2. A memorandum, dated 2 December 2010, reflects the unit requested a breathalyzer test for the applicant. The applicant arrived at work smelling of alcohol and blew a .154 BAC on the unit breathalyzer. 3. ASAP Treatment Plan Memorandum of Agreement, dated 06 December 2010, reflects the applicant agreed to a minimum of 60 days of outpatient treatment, to participate in group therapy and individual counseling, to attend the Prime for Life course, and complete two alcoholic anonymous (AA) meetings per week during his enrollment. 4. Seven negative counseling statements dated between 1 December 2010 and 28 January 2011, being AWOL x 5 (101201, 101202 x 2, 110125, and 110128), failure to obey a direct order (101202), and being drunk on duty x 2 (101201 and 101202). 5. MEDCOM Form 699-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 26 January 2011, reflects the applicant has a clear and normal thought process, was mentally responsible and could distinguish the difference between right and wrong. The applicant did not exhibit any symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 26 July 2014, a letter of support from Mr. W and Mr. L, dated 14 August 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. 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, his military records, 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. The applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by seven 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 desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 5. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 6. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony and notwithstanding 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 service to include his combat service and awards, that include two ARCOMs and two AAMs 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. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Personal Appearance Date: 3 November 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes Counsel: None Board Vote: Character Change: 3 No Change: 2 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: 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) AR20140015816 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1