IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 September 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140001546 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the former service member’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and notwithstanding the analyst’s Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the 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 Next of Kin (NOK), on behalf of the former service member, requests to upgrade the characterization of his service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable. 2. The NOK, on behalf of the former service member states, in pertinent part and in effect, that he served four terms of combat and he was a highly decorated Soldier. He had problems with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The former service member was embarrassed to seek medical attention because of his rank. He felt that it would hurt his military career. He was never treated for his heart and PTSD issues. He was separated because of a DUI. He would not speak with anyone about his PTSD; therefore, he self-medicated with using alcohol. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 22 January 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 10 June 2010 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200 Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Commander, 3rd Sqdn, 16th Cavalry Regiment, Fort Knox, KY f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 26 October 2003, Indefinite g. Current Enlistment Service: 6 years, 7 months, 15 days h. Total Service: 17 years, 3 months, 29 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: RA (930112-950613) / HD RA (950614-980630) / HD RA (980701-000726) / HD RA (000727-031025) / HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-7 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 19K40, 2S M1 Armor Crewman m. GT Score: 107 n. Education: 13 years o. Overseas Service: Germany, SWA p. Combat Service: Iraq (050908-060910), (030501-040801) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2; AAM-5; AGCM-5; NDSM; ICM-CS GWOTEM; GWOTSM; NPDR; ASR; OSR-3 r. Administrative Separation Board: No, waived s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the former service member enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 January 1993, and reenlisted four times thereafter. His latter reenlistment was on 26 October 2003, for an indefinite period. He was 19 years old at the time of entry, and had a year of college education. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 19K40, 2S M1 Armor Crewman. He served in Germany and Iraq. He earned two ARCOMs and five AAMs awards. He completed 17 years, 3 months, and 29 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the former service member’s service record shows that on 13 May 2010, the unit commander notified him 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, for wrongfully using marijuana based on a urinalysis test (100119). 2. The unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the former service member of his rights. 3. On 18 May 2010, the former service member consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement on his 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. 4. On 21 May 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the former service member’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The former service member was discharged from the Army on 10 June 2010, 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 former service member’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There is a positive urinalysis report contained in the record: IO, Inspection Other, 19 November 2010, marijuana. 2. Article 15, dated 23 March 2009, for committing sexual assault on two separate occasions (081019). The punishment consisted forfeiture of $1,919 per month for two months and 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG). 3. A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 17 September 2009, for driving while intoxicated. 4. A MP Report, dated 11 March 2010, indicates the former service member was the subject of an investigation for a controlled substance violation for use of marijuana, as determined by a urinalysis test. 5. Two DA Forms 1059, Service School Academic Evaluation Reports, dated 29 April 2005 and 15 May 2008, indicating the former service member achieved the course standards of the USA Battle Staff NCO Court, and failed to achieve the course standards of the M-ANCOC, respectively. 6. Five NCOERs rendered during the period under current review, as follows: a. An Annual report, covering the period of 1 December 2006 through 29 November 2007. The former service member was rated as “Among the Best” and received 1/2 from the senior rater. b. An Annual report, covering the period of 1 December 2005 through 30 November 2006. The former service member was rated as “Among the Best” and received 1/1 from the senior rater. c. An Annual report, covering the period of December 2004 through November 2005. The former service member was rated as “Among the Best” and received 1/1 from the senior rater. d. A “Change of Rater” report, covering the period of April 2004 through November 2004. The former service member was rated as “Among the Best” and received 1/1 from the senior rater. e. An Annual report, covering the period of April 2003 through March 2004. The former service member was rated as “Among the Best” and received 1/1 from the senior rater. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The NOK, on behalf of the former service member, provided a Certificate of Death, dated 14 September 2011; a self-authored statement; and a DD Form 214 for service under current review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The NOK, on behalf of the former service member, provided no further information. 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 NoK’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of the former service member’s discharge was carefully considered. 2. After examining the former service member’s record of service, his military records, the documents and issues submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the his discharge to honorable for the following reasons: a. Length and quality of service: The former service member served 6 years, 17 months, and 15 days of the latter term of his fourth reenlistment. He served a total of 17 years and four months of active duty service. Thus, the preponderance of his service was honorable. b. The record confirms the former service member received several awards, specifically, two ARCOMs and five AAMs. He served two tours in combat. 3. This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the former service member’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that his characterization of service may now be too harsh, and as a result, inequitable. 4. Although the NOK, on behalf of the former service member, contends he suffered from PTSD, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis for the Board’s consideration, and no documentary evidence was submitted to support the contention that the discharge may have been the result of any medical condition. 5. In view of the foregoing, it appears the characterization of the discharge is now inequitable and it is recommended the Board grant full 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. Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the former service member’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and notwithstanding the analyst’s Discussion and Recommendation, the Board determined that the discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 24 September 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: No Board Vote: Character Change: 2 No Change: 3 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) AR20140001546 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1