IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 5 November 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140000341 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. 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 of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he had good service and deserves an honorable characterization of service. He contends he served four months of intense duty in Afghanistan and another nine months of overseas duty. The incident leading to his discharge was an isolated incident and he has no reason to believe it will ever happen again. He contends, he has satisfied all the terms of his probation period, without any probation violation whatsoever, and would now like to have his discharge upgrade. He believes an upgrade of his discharge would better equip him for going back to school, being eligible for VA benefits, and for reenlistment in the Army. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 30 December 2012 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 14 August 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: A Co, 2nd Bn, 34th AR, Fort Riley, KS f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 3 May 2011, 3 years and 16 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 3 months, 12 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 3 months, 12 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10, Infantryman m. GT Score: 119 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (110929-111209) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, ACM-w/CS, NDSM-2, GWOTSM, ASR, NATO MDL, MUC r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 May 2011, for a period of 3 years and 16 weeks. He was 23 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. His record indicates he served a period of combat in Afghanistan; earned several awards including the ARCOM, and achieved the rank of PFC/E-3. He was serving at Fort Riley, KS when separation action was initiated. He completed 2 years, 3 months, and 12 days of military service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 6 May 2013, 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 (serious offense) for disobeying a direct order from a commissioned officer on two occasions, being disrespectful to two noncommissioned officers, wrongfully pulling a fire alarm, and urinating in public. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 7 May 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on 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. The intermediate commander recommended the applicant's separation be suspended for a period of 12 months. 4. On 17 May 2013, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The separation authority also directed the applicant's separation be suspended for a period of 12 months. 5. On 26 July 2013, the Commander of Headquarters, 1st Armed Brigade Combat Team, Fort Riley, KS, after reviewing the approved separation packet dated 17 May 2013, pertaining to the applicant and after careful consideration of all matters, directed the applicant's suspended separation be vacated and that he be separated from the Army prior to his expiration of his current term of service with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 6. The separation authority after reviewing the rehabilitative transfer requirement IAW AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16, determined the requirement(s) were waived, as the transfer would serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. 7. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 14 August 2013, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3. 8. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. A Military Police Report dated 22 December 2012, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for damage to government property, resisting apprehension, disorderly conduct, urinating in holding cell. 2. A Military Police Report dated 10 February 2013, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for disorderly conduct. 3. Article 15, imposed on 26 March 2013, for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer x 2 (121222 and 130210), being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer x 2 (121222), wrongfully pulling a fire alarm (121222), and disorderly conduct by urinating in public (121222). Punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $189.00 pay per month for two months, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG). 4. Three negative counseling statement dated between 22 December 2012 and 12 July 2013, for refusing to take a breathalyzer test, revocation of his pass and leave privileges, UCMJ recommendation, allegedly pulling a fire alarm, and intend to vacate suspension of discharge under Chapter 14-12 due to the incident that occurred on 6 July 2013, in which according to testimony from SGT P, the applicant got into his car with the intent to drive drunk and then became disrespectful. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 149 in lieu of a DD Form 293 and a copy of his DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None were provided with the 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, 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. By the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and several 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 contends he had good service and deserves an honorable characterization. However, by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct. It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. 5. The applicant contends his discharge was based on an isolated incident. Although an isolated incident, the discrediting entries constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by isolated incidents provide the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. 6. The applicant contends an upgrade of his discharge would better equip him for going back to school, being eligible for VA benefits, and for reenlistment in the Army. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 7. Also, 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 is 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. 8. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 9. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 5 November 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 0 No Change: 5 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: No Change Characterization to: No Change Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: NA Change RE Code to: NA 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) AR20140000341 Page 7 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1