IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 May 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140005784 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 awards (ARCOM), his positive screening for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) 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 an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge characterization to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he served in the military for over six years, had two tours to Iraq, and earned the rank of Sergeant and different awards and decorations. He states, his characterization mostly reflects the last 18 months of his service at Fort Drum, New York. He states, he reported to Fort Drum on a compassionate reassignment to be closer to his paraplegic father. He found himself getting into trouble a lot while trying to balance his family and military career, while at the same time having many disagreements with his chain of command. He states, he made mistakes and did not do things the right way. He states, since his discharge he is a full-time student attempting to earn an associate’s degree in Business Management while taking care of his father. He contends he wants to utilize the benefits he has to make an impact on society in a positive way. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 1 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 27 March 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion Fort Drum, NY f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 2 April 2011/3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 11 months, 26 days h. Total Service: 6 years, 7 months, 19 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 060809-060816, NA RA, 060817-090626, HD RA, 090627-110401, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-5 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist m. GT Score: 116 n. Education: GED o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Iraq (080823-090815) (100525-110525) q. Decorations/Awards: ICM-3CS, ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM NOPDR, ASR, OSR-2 r. Administrative Separation Board: Waived s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 August 2006, for a period of 3 years and 24 weeks. He was 21 years old at the time of entry, and had a General Equivalency Diploma. He served two tours in Iraq and earned an ARCOM. He completed 6 years, 7 months, 19 days of military service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving in Fort Drum, New York. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 26 November 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. Specifically for: a. failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (121022), b. being apprehended by military police for being disorderly and resisting arrest and disobeying a lawful order from an officer (121011), c. disobeying a lawful order from an NCO (120103, 120130, and 120202), and d. being disrespectful in language and deportment towards a NCO (between 111116 and 120103). 2. Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 27 November 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived his right to an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving an honorable discharge, and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf (NIF). 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 19 March 2013, the separation authority disapproved the conditional waiver request, and directed the applicant’s appearance before an administrative separation board. 5. On 20 March 2013, the applicant again consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and waived his right to an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He indicated he had previously submitted a statement on his own behalf (NIF). 6. On 21 March 2013, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant be discharged from the military with a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service. 7. The applicant was separated on 27 March 2013, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, a SPD code of JKA, and a RE code of 3. 8. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences, or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 1 May 2012, reflects the applicant had no obvious impairments, could understand the difference between right and wrong, and had a phase of life or circumstance problem. The applicant screened positive for PTSD and mTBI. He was referred for a comprehensive mTBI evaluation. 2. Article 15, dated 11 March 2013, for wrongful use of marijuana. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $849 pay per month for two months (suspended), 45 days of extra duty and an oral reprimand (FG). 3. Article 15, dated 24 April 2012, for disobeying a lawful order from a NCO (111216, 120103, 120130, and 120202), and disrespecting a NCO (111216 and 120103). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of $1,133 pay per month or two months (suspended), 45 days of extra duty and restriction (suspended), and an oral reprimand. 4. Four negative counseling statements, dated 11 October 2012, 19 October 2012, 22 October 2012, and 20 February 2013, for a positive urinalysis test, failure to report, being apprehended by the military police for disobeying an order, disorderly conduct, communicating a threat, and insubordination, and disrespecting an NCO and officer. 5. A MP Report, dated 11 October 2012, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for failure to obey a commissioned officer, insubordinate conduct towards a NCO, disorderly conduct, communicating a threat to a NCO, resisting apprehension, and operating a motor vehicle with an expired NY safety inspection sticker. 6. NCOER covering the period of 1 May 2011 through 1 September 2011. The applicant was assessed as “Fully Capable” by his rater and received a “2/1” rating from his senior rater. 7. A CID Report, dated 21 February 2013, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for the wrongful use of marijuana. 8. There is one positive urinalysis report contained in the record: IR, Inspection Random, 17 October 2012, marijuana EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided an online application, dated 26 March 2014, a DD Form 214, a self-authored statement, a rebuttal statement, dated 4 December 2012, a letter from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, dated 14 September 2011, Orders Number 173-543, dated 22 June 2011, Orders Number 195-537, dated 14 July 2011, DA Form 31, dated 26 September 2011, Orders Number 270-102, dated 27 September 2011, Orders Number 277-518, dated 4 October 2011, WLC Certificate, DA Form 1059, dated 5 March 2008, ARCOM certificate, DA Form 638, dated 5 January 2011, AAM certificate, promotion certificate, dated 1 May 2011, Permanent Orders Number 260-25, dated 17 September 2009, four certificates of training, basic training certificate, dated 3 November 2006, certificate of achievement, dated 30 September 2010, promotion point worksheet, dated 8 March 2011, Thomas A. Edison State College transcript, dated 15 February 2011, unofficial evaluation of civilian education credits memorandum, dated 5 March 2011, AKO printout, dated 28 December 2010, Soldier Deployment History, dated 16 August 2011, reenlistment reservation record, Honorable Discharge certificate, dated 26 June 2009, Oath of Reenlistment certificate, dated 26 June 2009, and two photographs. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states he is currently enrolled in school pursuing an associate’s degree in Business Management. 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. 2. After examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the documents and the 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 1 year, 11 months, 26 days of a 3-year enlistment, thus the preponderance of his service was honorable. b. The record confirms the applicant received several awards, specifically an ARCOM and AAM one of which was for a tour in combat. c. The applicant’s positive screening for PTSD and mTBI during his mental health evaluation. 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. 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: 20 May 2015 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) AR20140005784 Page 2 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1