IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 10 April 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140008095 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 would like to move on with his life in a positive manner. He states, he was a good Soldier and has worked hard since he was discharged from the military. He desires to use his education benefits. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 2 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 15 December 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 579th Signal Company, Camp Casey, Korea f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 8 June 2010/4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 3 months, 2 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 3 months, 2 days i. Time Lost: 96 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 25L10, Cable Systems Installer/Maintainer m. GT Score: 96 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Korea p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR-2 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 8 June 2010, for a period of 4 years. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Korea and did not earn any significant awards of valor or achievement. He completed 2 years, 3 months, 2 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving in Korea. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 16 November 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. Specifically for receiving a FG Article 15 for disobeying a commissioned officer, a lawful order and visiting an off limits establishment, receiving numerous counseling statements for failing to report, violating curfew, assaulting a civilian, and missing movement. 2. Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 20 November 2012, the applicant consulted 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. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 2 December 2012, the separation authority 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 15 December 2012, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant's record shows he was AWOL during the period 18 July 2012 through 23 October 2012. His mode of return is unknown. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 31 October 2012, reflects the applicant had no obvious impairments, could distinguish the difference between right and wrong, and no psychiatric conditions. He had a negative screening for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. 2. Article 15, dated 18 March 2012, for disobeying a commissioned officer, being off the installation without a battle buddy, and visiting an off limits establishment (110303). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $342 pay (suspended), 14 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand (CG). 3. Numerous negative counseling statements, dated between 21 January 2011 and 30 October 2012, for failure to be at his appointed place of duty, failure to obey an order, policy, or regulation, violation of a directive, failure to report, missing formation, assault, being the subject of an investigation, restriction, breaking restriction, living arrangement adjustment, loss of property, no contact order, and administrative separation recommendation. 4. Ministry of Justice Request for Transfer of Custody (After Trial), dated 10 July 2012, reflects the applicant was convicted of infliction of bodily injury. On 24 May 2012, he was fined KRW 50,000/1 day and credited with 1 day of confinement. 5. DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 5 December 2012, changed the applicant’s duty status. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 23 April 2014 and a DD Form 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any in support of his 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, 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 a CG Article 15, conviction of assault, and numerous 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 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: 10 April 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) AR20140008095 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1