IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 July 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120000182 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). 2. The applicant states his discharge should be upgraded based on his actions and his community involvement. 3. The applicant provides a copy of the photograph page from his U.S. passport. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 November 2005. He was trained as a medical logistics specialist, military occupational specialty (MOS) 68J. 2. The applicant's records do not contain the complete details surrounding his active service and his discharge; however, they do show: * 3 days of absence without leave (AWOL) * the acceptance of a field grade Article 15 punishment (not a matter of record) * reduction from specialist (SPC/E-4) to private (PV2/E-2) 3. On an unknown date in August 2009 but acknowledged by the applicant on 24 August 2009, the applicant's unit commander initiated action to separate him for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. The commander noted the applicant: * failed to report for duty on several occasions * wrongfully appropriated a government vehicle * disobeyed the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer (NCO) * disrespected an NCO * was AWOL from 18-20 August 2009 4. The applicant met with legal counsel who advised him of his rights and of the impact of the proposed discharge action. The applicant elected not to make a statement. The administrative separation action was then processed with a recommendation for a GD. 5. On 10 September 2009, the separation authority waived rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant be separated with a GD. On 16 September 2009, the applicant was discharged with a GD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct. 6. The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade. The ADRB, after considering his case on 7 November 2011, denied his request. 7. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. 8. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states an HD 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's request was carefully considered; however, the evidence of record and the evidence provided by the applicant do not support an upgrade of his discharge from GD to HD. 2. Although a complete accounting of the applicant's misconduct and his administrative separation is not available, he was discharged for frequent acts of misconduct. These acts were identified by his unit commander in the notification acknowledged by the applicant on 24 August 2009. 3. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights; he was afforded legal counsel and advised of his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for it were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X____ ___X____ ___X ___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120000182 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120000182 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1