IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 31 July 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20130018260 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 to upgrade the characterization of his service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable. 2. The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, his discharge should be changed because it is hard enough as a minority to compete for civilian jobs—there is no unemployment benefits and benefits to assist his family. He filed numerous IG reports against Soldiers above him and also overheard the commander speaking about races and ethnic groups that did not belong in “his” Army. After he filed the reports, his Article 15 actions started. He received two Article 15 actions, each with four punishments. He did his punishment inside the military. He is still being punished by his current discharge. He wants to better himself by furthering his education to one day return as an officer and assist with changing the lives of young Soldiers. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 7 October 2013 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 31 October 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14- 12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 108th MP Co, 503rd MP Bn (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 29 July 2008, 5 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years, 3 months, 2 days h. Total Service: 4 years, 3 months, 2 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 31B10, Military Police m. GT Score: 96 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Iraq (100403-110317) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM; AGCM; NDSM; ICM-2CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 July 2008, for a period of 5 years. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31B10, Military Police. He served in Iraq. He earned an ARCOM. He completed 4 years, 3 months, and 2 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 12 July 2012, 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 the following misconduct: a. being punished under the provisions of an Article 15, UCMJ, for failing to pay a debt in the amount of $200 to SPC D; b. making a false official statement to SFC W, to wit: he was in good standing with his rent; c. being counseled for disobeying and lying to an NCO; and d. being counseled on numerous occasions for failing to maintain sufficient funds in his bank account. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 12 July 2012, being offered the opportunity to confer with a legal counsel, the applicant made his election of rights, indicated he understood the impact of the discharge action, and elected to submit a statement on his own behalf (NIF). (Note that the applicant did not complete the waiver portion of consulting with a legal counsel; however, any documented consultation is not available.) 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 23 August 2012, 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 31 October 2012, 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, 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. There are no negative counseling statements or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The action that reduced the applicant to PV2/E-2 is not available. 2. The applicant’s separation packet is limited to the decision memorandums. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a character reference statement; 2nd page of a counseling statement, dated 18 August 2011; and the applicant’s Article 15 appeal statement. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant provided none. 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 of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 3. The applicant provided insufficient 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 he filed numerous IG reports against Soldiers above him and also overheard the commander speaking about races and ethnic groups that did not belong in “his” Army. After he filed the reports, his Article 15 actions started; he received two Article 15 actions, each with four punishments; and although he did his punishment inside the military, he is still being punished by his current discharge. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discriminated. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. 5. The third party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant’s performance. However, the person providing the character reference statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant’s chain of command. As such, the statement does not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 6. The applicant has expressed his desire to have better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, 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. 7. The applicant also expressed his desire to rejoin the Service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are 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. 8. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. Accordingly, the records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 9. 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: 31 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) AR20130018260 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1