IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 15 December 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140001047 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge; wherein, he was separated over a year after the offense that led to his discharge, and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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 to upgrade the characterization of his service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, a month after returning from a deployment, he was charged with a DUI offense in April 2012. His post driving privileges were suspended for a year. In July (sic) (actually on 27 June) 2012, he received a FG Article for the offense. His battalion commander informed him that he would remain in the Army absent any misconduct and that his flag would be lifted after six months but was extended to a year. In April 2013, he was able to drive and perform his MOS. He was also informed to extend his enlistment date (an ETS of 19 December 2013) to enable him to deploy with his unit in July 2013. However, upon pre-deployment and medical processing, he was informed he would not deploy and had to separate in two weeks. A command policy indicated that a DUI after November 2012 would cause an automatic discharge, but his DUI offense had occurred before that period and he did not have any other misconduct. He was surprised and unprepared for being discharged for an offense that occurred over a year ago. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 13 January 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 17 June 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 539th Trans Co, 17th Combat Sustainment Spt Bn, 2nd Engr Bde, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 10 August 2010, 3 years, 19 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 10 months, 8 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 10 months, 8 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 88M10, Motor Transport Operator m. GT Score: 92 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA, Alaska p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (110515-120310) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM; NDSM; ACM-2CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR; NATO MDL r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 August 2008, for a period of 3 years and 19 weeks. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M10, Motor Transport Operator. He served in Alaska and Afghanistan. His record documents no other acts of valor or significant achievement. He completed 2 years, 10 months, and 8 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 22 March 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 misconduct (serious offense), specifically for physically controlling a vehicle with a Breath Alcohol Concentration (BRaC) of .130 percent. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended an honorable discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 27 March 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and submitted 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. 4. On 20 May 2013, the separation authority, using a recommendation template memorandum, waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 17 June 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. 6. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Article 15, dated 29 June 2012, for DWI (120406). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $745 per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction, (FG). 2. Three negative counseling statements, dated between 6 and 17 April 2012, for driving under the influence of alcohol; having off-post privileges revoked; and purchasing alcohol for Soldiers under the legal drinking age of 21. 3. DA Form 3822, Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 February 2013, indicates the applicant completed ASAP classes in August 2012. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a memorandum notifying him of his separation action rendered by his unit commander, undated; four character reference statements; his birth certificate; and his deployment orders, dated 2 February 2012, with an amendment. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant provided none. 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. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, misconduct (serious misconduct). 5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. 2. After examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, and the documents and issues submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to honorable for the following reasons: a. Length and quality of service: The applicant served over 2 years and 10 months of his 3 years and 19 weeks enlistment, thus the preponderance of his service was honorable. b. The record confirms the applicant successfully served a tour in combat. (Note the unit commander’s forwarding memorandum and the operations officer’s character reference statement indicates the applicant earned an ARCOM; however, the award is not available in his record.) c. Circumstances surrounding his discharge indicate he was discharged over a year after the single offense that led to his discharge. d. There is no other derogatory information in his record. e. His unit commander had recommended him for an honorable characterization of service. 3. This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service may now be too harsh and as a result inequitable. 4. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s performance. They all recognize his good conduct prior to and after the single incident, which led to his discharge. As such, the statements provide sufficient compelling evidence to consider toward an honorable characterization of service. 5. In view of the foregoing, it appears the characterization of the discharge is now inequitable and it is recommended the Board grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 15 December 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 5 No Change: 0 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: Yes Change Characterization to: Honorable 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) AR20140001047 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1