IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 May 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140008297 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 an Infantry Soldier every day of his life. The applicant contends, he was targeted and discriminated. The applicant states, everyone in his unit said he was mistreated. The applicant contends, he was told by his platoon sergeant that he can rejoin the military in two years; however, that was not true. The applicant requests the board does not take his education benefits. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 5 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 9 February 2008 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: A Troop, 4th Squadron, 7th Cavalry, Camp Casey, Korea f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 17 August 2006/3 years, 17 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 5 months, 23 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 5 months, 23 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10, Infantryman m. GT Score: 102 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Korea p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR 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 17 August 2006 for a period of 3 years and 17 weeks. He was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Korea. He completed 1 year, 5 months, and 23 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Camp Casey, Korea. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 17 January 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, by reason of misconduct (serious offense). Specifically for receiving an Article 15 for violating Articles 90 and 91 of the UCMJ. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 18 January 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action. It is unknown whether the applicant elected to 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 30 January 2008, 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 9 February 2008, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, for misconduct (serious offense), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ 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 24 August 2007, for disobeying a lawful order (070722 x2). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $650.00 pay (suspended), 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG). 2. An MP Report, dated 26 October 2007, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for disorderly conduct (drunkenness) and disrespect to officer. 3. Eight counseling statements, dated between 27 January 2007 and 22 October 2007, for monthly work performance, revoking pass privileges, violation of revocation of pass privileges, violating Article 128 and Policy #8, avoiding extra duty, and restricted to on post as a result of being at risk. 4. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 11 December 2007, reflects that the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 24 April 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None wew provided 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, 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 general or a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15 for 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 an infantryman every day of his life. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceedings 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 repeated 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 that he was harrased and discriminated by members of his chain of command; however, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 6. 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. 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: 15 May 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) AR20140008297 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1