IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 August 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140000209 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 upgrade of his general discharge to a fully honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states his misconduct consisted of minor offenses and the preponderance of his service shows meritorious character and honorable service. Additionally, the supporting statements will attest to his good post-service conduct. 3. The applicant provides a two-page letter explaining his application and four third-party statements of support. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 November 2006 for a period of 4 years and training as a Bradley Fighting Vehicle Infantryman. He completed his basic training at Fort Sill, OK and his advanced individual training at Fort Knox, KY. 2. He was transferred to Korea for his first assignment and then to Fort Stewart, GA. 3. On 3 August 2009, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (NCO), and for being disrespectful in language and deportment toward an NCO. 4. On 17 June 2010, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of communicating a threat to an NCO. 5. On 15 July 2010, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. 6. On 16 July 2010 after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant declined the opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf. 7. On 19 July 2010, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge. 8. Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 25 August 2010 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, due to pattern of misconduct. He had served 3 years, 9 months, and 11 days of active service. 9. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 12 November 2010 for an upgrade of his discharge contending that his character of service should be honorable to reflect his actual service. After reviewing all of the available evidence, the ADRB unanimously determined that his discharge was both equitable and proper under the circumstances and on 13 July 2011, denied his request. 10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and commission of a serious offense, which includes drug offenses. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. b. 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contentions and supporting documents have been noted; however, they are not supported by the evidence of record and thus are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the repeated nature of his offenses. The applicant's overall service simply does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge. 2. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights. Accordingly, the reason for his separation and characterization of his service was appropriate for the circumstances of his case. 3. In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant a fully honorable discharge. 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) AR20140000209 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140000209 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1