Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2012/03/13 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that his DD Form 214 says he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14 for disciplinary reason even though it was an under honorable discharge and because of this, his medical board was stopped. In his military career he only received one Article 15 and only four counseling statements. 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: 110607 Discharge Received: Date: 110722 Chapter: 14-12c AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense) RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: Company G, 232nd Medical Battalion, 32nd Medical Brigade, Fort Sam Houston, TX Time Lost: AWOL x 1, (100125-100220) 26 days; the applicant returned to his unit. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 100325, AWOL, (100125-100220); reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month for two months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days and an oral reprimand (FG) 100527, disobeyed a lawful order from SFC, a noncommissioned officer to go to his appointed place of duty (100517), extra duty and restriction for 7 days (Summarized) Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 28 Current ENL Date: 090622 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 0 Mos, 5 Days The net active service this period on the DD Form 214, block 12c is incorrect; should be 2 years, 0 months, 5 days. The applicant has a period of AWOL that was not deducted from his net active service during the period of service under review. Total Service: 2 Yrs, 0 Mos, 5 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 119 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM 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 18 May 2011, 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-commission of a serious offense; in that he wrongfully obstructed justice by telling the subject of a Criminal Investigation Command investigation to flee San Antonio, Texas, because he was being investigated for supplying heroin to Soldiers on Fort Sam Houston; he wrongfully used percocet and PCP, AWOL (100125-100220), and wrote bad checks. Additionally, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty, disrespected a Noncommissioned Officer, and violated unit policy by wearing civilian clothes and being out after bedcheck. The unit commander recommended separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 6 June 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general, under honorable conditions discharge, 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 30 June 2011, the separation authority reviewed the administrative separation packet and the Medical Evaluation Board proceedings and found that the applicant's medical condition was not a substantial contributing cause of the applicant's misconduct and approved the recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense. The separation authority further directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The record contains two CID Reports of Investigation in reference to the applicant's offenses of; obstruction of justice, and wrongful use of dangerous drugs,dated 25 August 2010 and 27 August 2010; Military Police Report in reference to the applicant's offenses of; uttering worthless checks, larceny of private property dated 17 June 2010. 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, 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 and performance of duty by military personnel. By the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 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 analyst noted the applicant's issue he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14 for disciplinary reason even though it was an under honorable discharge and because of this, his medical board was stopped. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense (i.e., Field Grade Article 15, Summarized Article 15 and several negative counseling statements) with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. However, AR 635-200 requires that the separation action and the medical evaluation board findings be forwarded to the General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) who determined in writing that the Soldiers medical condition was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct that led to the initiation of the separation action which was done according to the evidence in the applicant's record (i.e., memorandum dated 30 June 2011). Additionally, the memorandum indicates further that the Genreal Court-Martial Convening Authority after rendering his decision went on and approved the administrative separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense. The applicant further contends that in his military career he only received one Article 15 and only four counseling statements. Before initiating action to separate the applicant, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about the deficiencies, which could lead to separation. The analyst noted the command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory soldier. The evidence of record established that the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome the noted deficiencies. As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service. 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: 17 August 2012 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 26 January 2012, memorandum addressed to the applicant in reference to a grant of immunity and order to testify dated 16 June 2011. 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: No Change Other: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change XI. Certification Signature Approval Authority: ARCHIE L. DAVIS III Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board BONITA E. TROTMAN 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 AR20120005354 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 4 pages