IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 17 April 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140001727 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 to upgrade the characterization of his service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable, and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his treating doctor was preparing him for a medical discharge when his unit decided to do a Chapter 13 because he technically could not perform as expected or required. The doctor advised him to take the Chapter 13 and have his discharge reviewed later as the doctor was very concerned for his health; the longer he remained on active duty, and determining that a Chapter 13 would be resolved much faster then a medical discharge. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 27 January 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 16 October 2003 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unsatisfactory Performance, AR 635-200, Chapter 13, JKJ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: A Co, Operations Group, Fort Irwin, CA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 8 August 2000, 6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 2 months, 9 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 2 months, 9 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 74B10, Information Systems Operator m. GT Score: 112 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM; ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: None s. Performance Ratings: No t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 August 2000, for a period of 6 years. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 74B10, Information Systems Operator. His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. He completed 3 years, 2 months, and 9 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s service record shows that on 29 August 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, specifically for failing to develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and becoming a satisfactory Soldier, and his ability to perform duties effectively and potential for advancement are unlikely. 2. The unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 9 September 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 26 September 2003, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant was not transferred to the US Army Reserve Control Group. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 16 October 2003, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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. Summarized Article 15, dated 16 June 2003, for disobeying and disrespecting an NCO and failing to follow an NTC policy letter (030228). The punishment consisted of 10 days of extra duty. 2. Fourteen negative counseling statements, dated between 29 July 2002 and 8 August 2003, for overall unsatisfactory performance; a separation action being recommended and initiated; being counseled on numerous occasions; not being in compliance with AR 600-9; performance not being up to standard; failing an APFT; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time; receiving a traffic ticket for running a stop sign; disrespecting an NCO and violating an NTC policy letter; failing to comply with AR 670-1; being indebted and failing to pay; performance needing improvement; and integrity being questioned. 3. DA Forms 5500-R, Body Fat Content Worksheets, dated 25 June 2003, indicate the applicant was not in compliance with the Army standards. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided six individual sick slips, dated between 20 February 2003 and 5 January 2004; Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 August 2003; summarized Article 15, dated 5 March 2003; and a voluminous packet containing his medical documents. 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. 2. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. 3. 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 "JKJ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance. 4. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKJ" 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 and to change the narrative reason for his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, and the documents and issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge or a change to the narrative reason for his 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. By the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable characterization of service. 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 should have been medically discharged because his treating doctor was preparing him for a medical discharge when his unit decided to discharge him under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, as he technically could not perform as expected or required. However, the available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. 5. In carefully reviewing his contentions for his unit deciding to discharge him for unsatisfactory performance, there is also a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discriminated. In fact, the applicant’s Article 15 action and numerous negative counseling statements justify unsatisfactory performance. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge or to change the narrative reason for his discharge. 6. 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. Accordingly, the records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 7. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 17 April 2015 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) AR20140001727 Page 5 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1