IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 25 March 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140007155 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 was a young Soldier that had a tough time with his command and did stupid things. The applicant states, he has since joined the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, attained the rank of staff sergeant, deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2007, and recently reenlisted for another six years. The applicant contends, he is currently seeking an opportunity as a warrant officer and does not want anything from his past to reflect poorly on his character now. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 21 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 15 November 1999 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Battery B, 1st Battalion, 17th Field Artillery, Fort Sill, OK f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 11 September 1997/3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 2 months, 5 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 2 months, 5 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 13E10, Cannon Fire Direction Specialist m. GT Score: 103 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: AAM, 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 11 September 1997 for a period of 3 years. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He earned an AAM and completed 2 years, 2 months, and 5 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 18 October 1999, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, by reason of misconduct. Specifically for breaking restriction, continuously failing to be at his appointed place of duty, and disrespecting and failing to follow the orders of noncommissioned officers. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 19 October 1999, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and submitted a statement on his own behalf. In the self-authored letter, the applicant acknowledged the problems that he created for himself, apologized for his actions, and requested a rehabilitative transfer to another unit. 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 November 1999, 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 15 November 1999, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for 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 5 March 1999, failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (990218). The record is void of the continuation sheet. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $223.00 pay, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction (CG). 2. An Article 15, dated 29 June 1999, failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (990612). The record is void of the continuation sheet. The punishment consisted forfeiture of $300.00 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG). 3. An Article 15, dated 23 August 1999, for breaking imposed restriction (990730). The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $223.00 pay and 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG). 4. Numerous negative counseling statements, dated between 10 August 1998 and 30 July 1999, for violating restriction, missing formations, disobeying orders, disrespecting NCOs, poor attitude, failing to report, bar to reenlistment, having alcohol on his breath, implications that led to UCMJ and flagging actions, and driving a vehicle without a valid license. 5. DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate), dated 19 March 1999, reflects that the applicant was barred to reenlist based on indicators of untrainability or unsuitability (i.e. missing formation, disrespect to a NCO, and act of poor military discipline). 6. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 7 July 1999, reflects that the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 1. The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 17 April 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. 2. The applicant provided a DD Form 214, covering the period of 8 July 2007 through 6 April 2008, while serving on active duty deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states, he has since joined the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, attained the rank of staff sergeant, deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2007, and recently reenlisted for another six years. 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 misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by three Articles 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 he was young and immature at the time of the discharge. 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. 5. The applicant contends, since leaving the Army he has joined the Pennsylvania Army National Guard and has recently reenlisted for six years. The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 6. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 7. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 8. 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: 25 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) AR20140007155 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1