IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 11 March 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140006484 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 characterization to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he is responsible for his actions and is now sober. The applicant contends an upgrade of his discharge will allow him access to his G.I. Bill for school. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 3 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 20 May 2008 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Headquarters and Medical Company, US Army Medical Department Activity, Fort Sill, OK f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 4 October 2006/4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 7 months, 17 days h. Total Service: 5 years, 3 months, 18 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: RA, 030203-061003, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 68G10, Patient Administrative Specialist m. GT Score: 110 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Korea p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM, KSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: N/A s. Performance Ratings: N/A t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 February 2003, for a period of 4 years. He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He reenlisted on 4 October 2006, for a period of 4 years. He served in Korea. He completed 5 years, 3 months, and 18 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 27 April 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, by reason of pattern of misconduct; specifically for violating Articles 91, 92 and 112, six violations of Article 86, received a Company Article 15 (080220), and being counseled for misconduct on numerous occasions. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 29 April 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and submitted a statement on his own behalf. The record is void of the applicant’s statement. 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 4 May 2008, the separation authority 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 20 May 2008, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA 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. An Article 15, dated 20 February 2008, disobeying a lawful order (080206), derelict in the performance of his duties (080207), failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on diverse occasions (080108, 080110, 080128 x2, 080124, and 080129). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $417.00 pay (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty (suspended) (CG). 2. Numerous negative counseling statements, dated between 27 December 2007 and 1 April 2008, for showing up to work late, insubordination, failing to communicate with his proper chain of command, disobeying orders, failing to be at his appointed place of duty, violating the HIPAA law, sleeping on duty, and drunk on duty. 3. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 9 April 2008, reflects that the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 30 October 2013, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states, he has been sober for the past 13 months and working hard in Alcoholics Anonymous. 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, the documents 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 his service below that meriting a general or a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred an Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 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 educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, 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: 11 March 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) AR20140006484 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1