Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2011/12/07 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that the discharge level is inequitable because it is based solely on one incident in approximately 36 months of active duty with no preceding or following incidents. For the chain of command to consider the discharge under a pattern of misconduct, one must have multiple non-judicial punishments (i.e., Article-15s) in the Servicemember's file. In his 36 months of active duty, he only received one Field Grade Article-15 originating from his incident on January 20, 2008 and he proceeded to follow the necessary programs to rehabilitate him back into Army life. He was administratively separated despite being classified by mental and physical health professionals to be fully capable to be put back into his unit without any hindrance to his comrades in arms. By order of the chain of command, he underwent an evaluation by a clinical social worker at Fort Riley, KS, where it was declared he was mentally fit to return to active duty without further scrutiny from his leaders. Furthermore, while on non-judicial punishment, he participated in the Army Substance Abuse Program, where he successfully passed the course and was deemed not to have any problems and could continue his daily routine. Even though he completed the Army's rehabilitation program, he was separated under AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. Additionally, after he was discharged from the Army, he participated in the State of Kansas's mandated Alcohol and Drug Safety Awareness Program which he passed as well. The mental health professional declared before attending the program that he had no problem with potential alcoholism. Prior to his discharge and despite the adverse action, he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 080311 Discharge Received: Date: 080417 Chapter: 14-12c AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense) RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: Co C, 2nd Bn, 70th Armor, 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st AD, Fort Riley, KS Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 080218, disobeyed a lawful order by wrongfully driving within eight hours of consuming alcohol (080121), reduced to E-1: forfeiture of $673 x 2 months; 45-day extra duty and restriction; oral reprimand, (FG) Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 24 Current ENL Date: 050421 Current ENL Term: 3 Years 15 Weeks Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 11 Mos, 27 Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 11 Mos, 27 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 19K (M1 Armor Crewman) GT: 110 EDU: 16 Years Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AGCM; NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 10 March 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for commission of a serious offense by physically controlling a vehicle while drunk, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 11 March 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted 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 of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 4 April 2008, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 of this regulation 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 absence 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. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The analyst determined 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 by military personnel. Furthermore, the analyst noted that even though 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 that there are circumstances in which the conduct reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant's contentions were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. This presumption is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. 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. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity in this case and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 23 May 2012 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: Online application, dated 9 Nov 2011; Report of Behavioral Health Eval, dated 28 Jan 2008. VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. IX. Board Decision Board Vote: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) X. Board Action Directed Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature Approval Authority: Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army Secretary Recorder ????? Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court Martial BCD Bad Conduct Discharge GD General Discharge NIF Not in the file SPCM Special Court Martial CG Company Grade Article 15 HD Honorable Discharge OAD Ordered to Active Duty UNC Uncharacterized Discharge DD Dishonorable Discharge HS High School Graduate OMPF Official Military Personnel File UOTH Under Other Than Honorable FG Field Grade Article 15 IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE Reentry Code Conditions ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20110023574 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 3 pages