IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 20 March 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140006779 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 to honorable, and a change to the narrative reason for separation and reentry code. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he is mature now and desires to serve again. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 14 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 20 May 1999 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unsatisfactory Performance, AR 635-200, Chapter 13, JHJ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: A Company, 143rd Ordnance Battalion, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 20 August 1998/3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 9 months, 1 day h. Total Service: 9 months, 1 day i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-1 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 63G10, Fuel & Electrical Systems Repairer m. GT Score: 109 n. Education: GED o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: None 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 20 August 1998, for a period of 3 years. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and had a General Equivalency Diploma (GED). His record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement. He completed 9 months and 1 day of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving in Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 14 May 1999, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, paragraph 13-2, for unsatisfactory performance. Specifically for receiving a CG Article 15 on 11 February 1999, for disobeying a lawful order from an NCO. The unit commander indicated the applicant had been counseled on numerous occasions for his misconduct and he failed to respond. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 14 May 1999, 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. 4. On 14 May 1999, the separation waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on 20 May 1999, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JHJ, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Article 15, dated 17 February 1999, for disobeying a lawful order from a NCO. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $223 pay and 14 days extra duty and restriction (CG). 2. Several negative counseling statements, dated between 2 February 1999 and April 1999, for failure to maintain barracks room standards, failure to follow instructions, failure to be at his appointed place of duty, performance counseling, disrespect to a NCO, APFT failure, Phase IV completion, and military conduct. 3. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Health Status Evaluation), dated 23 March 1999, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible and had clear and normal thought process and content. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 12 March 2014, a DD Form 214, and Discharge Orders Number 11-087-00070. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant reenlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 12 February 2009, for a period of six years. He was discharged from the USAR on 2 April 2011, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 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 "JHJ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. 4. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JHJ" 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 a change to the narrative reason for separation and reentry code 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, narrative reason or reentry code. 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 contends that a change in the reason for the discharge and his reentry code would allow for his reenlistment. However, 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 "JHJ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, paragraph 13-2, for unsatisfactory performance. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 4. Further, the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JHJ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 5. The applicant contends he is mature now. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 6. 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: 20 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) AR20140006779 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1