IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 14 July 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140007433 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that the vast majority of his service was good and admirable. While serving in Iraq he reenlisted. He contends that his discharge was not consistent with his performance of duty. After returning from Iraq, he received two Articles 15 and was discharged. If he had known at the time he suffered with PTSD he could have been treated with medication (given later) and counseling with physicians and fellow service members, resulting in an entirely difference outcome. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 21 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 6 December 2005 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14 Paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 4th CMMC, Fort Hood, TX f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 19 November 2004, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 11 days h. Total Service: 5 years, 3 months, 15 days i. Time Lost: 7 days j. Previous Discharges: RA-000815-041118/HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist m. GT Score: 107 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia p. Combat Service: Iraq (030815-040814) q. Decorations/Awards: AGCM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 August 2000, for a period of four years. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He reenlisted on 19 November 2004, for a period of four years. His record indicates he served in Iraq; achieved the rank of SPC/E-4; and earned several awards to include the AGCM. He was serving at Fort Hood, TX when separation action was initiated. He completed 5 years, 3 months, and 15 days of total active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 26 October 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct. Specifically for the following offenses: a. receiving a CG Article 15 for violation of Article 86x2 and Article 92, b. receiving a FG Article 15 for violation of Article 86x14 and Article 112a, and c. receiving numerous counseling statements. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit a statement on 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 15 November 2005, 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 6 December 2005, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record of service indicates seven days of time lost for being AWOL from 20 June 2005 until his return on 27 June 2005. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Article 15, imposed on 24 May 2005, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 3 (050324, 050418, and 050421), and disobeying a lawful order from 1SG L.H., his senior noncommissioned officer (050317). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $382.00 (suspended), and extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG). 2. There is a positive urinalysis report contained in the record coded; PO (Probable Cause), dated 2 June 2005, THC. 3. Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 21 June 2005 and 27 June 2005, changing the applicant's duty status from present for duty (PDY) to absent without leave (AWOL), and AWOL to PDY. 4. Article 15, imposed on 24 October 2005, for the wrongful use of marijuana between (020505 and 050602), going AWOLx2 (050620-050627 and 050614-050615), and failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of dutyx14 (050503, 050517x2, 050608, 050614, 050615, 050616, 050620, 050628, 050702, 050711, 050801, 050913). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $617.00 pay per month for two months, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG). 5. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 October 2005, which indicates the applicant was evaluated by the psychology department, at Darnell Army Community Hospital pursuant to AR 635-200, Chapter 14. The evaluation revealed no evidence of suicidal or homicidal behavior, altered through process or any other mental health conditions that would explain the behavior that resulted in the initiation of the administrative action against him. The applicant was determined psychologically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible. 6. Thirteen negative counseling statements dated between 3 May 2005 and 13 September 2005, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the appointed time on numerous occasions, failing to bring all clothing and equipment in for inventory, testing positive on a urinalysis test (050602), lack of hygiene in personal living quarters, and going AWOL. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None were provide with the 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, 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 fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by two Articles 15, for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and 13 negative counseling statements. 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’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the incidents of misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 5. The applicant contends his misconduct was the result of his untreated PTSD medical issues. However, the service record does not support the applicant's contention that he suffered from PTSD at the time of discharge and no evidence to support it had been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 6. The evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts; the character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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: Record Review Date: 14 July 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: No 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) AR20140007433 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1