IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 27 February 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140005299 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he desires to continue his education in order to better his life. He states, he has matured and is a father and want a second chance. He states, he went through hard times in the military and felt everyone in his unit was against him when he went through a divorce. He takes full responsibility for acting out against his NCO. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 20 March 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 24 February 2003 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 20th Engineer Company, Fort Bragg, NC f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 14 February 2001/4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 10 months h. Total Service: 1 year, 10 months i. Time Lost: 71 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 31U10, Signal Support Systems Specialist m. GT Score: 105 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 February 2001, for a period of 4 years. He was 23 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. His record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement. He completed 1 year and 10 months of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was stationed at Fort Bragg, NC. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 4 February 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense); specifically for testing positive for a controlled substance and being AWOL from his unit. 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 4 February 2003, the applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 5 February 2003, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on 24 February 2003, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant's record shows he was AWOL during the period 6 November 2002 through 15 January 2003, for a total of 71 days and surrendered to the military authorities. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There is one positive urinalysis report contained in the record coded: IR, Inspection Random, 8 October 2002, for cocaine 2. Article 15, dated 4 February 2003, for being AWOL from 6 November 2002 until 16 January 2003 and wrongful use of cocaine on 29 September 2002 and 8 October 2002. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $575 per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG). 3. One negative counseling statement, dated 21 January 2003, for recommendation for Chapter 14-12c discharge. 4. Three DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated between 6 November 2002 and 16 January 2003, reflect the changes to the applicant’s duty status. 5. A mental status evaluation, dated 31 October 2002, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process, was mentally responsible, and no evidence of any psychiatric conditions. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 3 March 2014, and a DD Form 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any in support of his 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, his military records, 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 pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by a FG Article 15 and a negative counseling statement. 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 that an upgrade of his discharge would allow him to further his education. He went through hard times while in the military and felt that everyone in the unit was against him because he went through a divorce. 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. Further, 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. 5. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 6. 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: 27 February 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) AR20140005299 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1