IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 May 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140008339 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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, the charges that led to his discharge were dismissed and expunged from his record. The applicant contends, he has attended and passed several classes and achieved numerous certifications following his separation date. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 6 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 3 March 2011 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: C Troop, 1st Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 17 September 2008/5 years, 21 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 5 months, 17 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 5 months, 17 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10, Infantryman m. GT Score: 130 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, GWTSM, HSM, ASR, EIB 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 September 2008 for a period of 5 years and 21 weeks. He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He earned an AAM and completed 2 years, 5 months, and 17 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 20 January 2011, 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 being arrested for wrongfully attempting to commit larceny of a motor vehicle, wrongfully breaking and entering into a motor vehicle, and wrongfully damaging two surveillance cameras of a value of less than $500.00 (101107). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 20 January 2011, 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 statement the applicant formally apologizes for his actions, the discredit it brought upon the unit, and requested to be retained in the Army. 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 10 February 2011, 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 3 March 2011, 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 contains no evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. One negative counseling statement, dated 9 November 2010, for being arrested for attempted larceny. 2. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 29 November 2010, reflects that the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. The applicant was diagnosed in Axis I with Occupational Problem. 3. Hope Mills Police Department Incident/Investigation Report, dated 7 November 2010, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for attempted larceny of a motor vehicle. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 1. The applicant provided a DD Form 293, undated, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. 2. Bexas-Bulverde Volunteer Fire Department letter, dated 1 February 2012, written by the Assistant Chief, confirms the applicant is an active volunteer with the department and that he has completed 48 volunteer hours. 3. State of North Carolina Dismissal Notice of Reinstatement, dated 7 February 2012, signed by the Prosecutor, reflects the charges against the applicant was dismissed based on the applicant entering and successfully completing a deferred prosecution agreement with the prosecutor. 4. Parish & Cooke Attorneys-at-law letter, dated 30 August 2012, written by Mr. P, states the charges against the applicant has been expunged. 5. Certificates of completion, accreditation certificates, certificates of achievement from the following institutions: a. National Registry Emergency Medical Technicians, Emergency Medical Technician, 3 January 2012 b. Texas Commission on Fire Protection (1) Firefighter Basic, 2 February 2012 (2) Hazardous Materials Awareness, 22 June 2012 (3) Hazardous Materials Operations, 17 August 2012 c. Emergency Management Institute (FEMA) (1) Introduction to Incident Command System, 20 July 2012 (2) Initial Action Incident, 20 July 2012 (3) National Incident Management System (NIMS) An Introduction, 20 July 2012 (4) National Response Framework An Introduction, 20 July 2012 (5) ICS Simulation Series: Ranch House, 9 April 2013 (6) ICS Simulation Series: Townhouse, 9 April 2013 (7) ICS Simulation Series: Mansion, 9 April 2013 (8) ICS Simulation Series: Casper Hall Dorm, 9 April 2013 (9) ICS Simulation Series: Nursing Home, 9 April 2013 (10) ICS Simulation Series: Wildland Fire, 9 April 2013 (11) ICS Simulation Series: Strip Mall Hostage/Arson Fire, 21 August 2013 (12) Firefighter Safety – Calling the Mayday, 21 August 2013 (13) Awareness of Command and Control Decision Making at Multiple Alarm Incidents, 30 April 2014 (14) Introduction to Wildland Fire Behavior (2008) Online, 1 May 2014 d. Emergency Service Training Institute, The Texas A&M University System (1) Incident Safety Officer, 17 March 2013 (2) Intermediate ICS for Expanding Incidents for Operational First Responders (3) Advanced ICS for Command and General Staff, Complex Incidents and MACS for Operational First e. Texas Fire Academy - Driver/Operator Pumper, 14 December 2013 f. Texas Department of State Health Services, Emergency Medical Technician, unknown date 6. Fireworks Pyrotechnic Operator’s License, dated 12 August 2013 7. U.S. Department of Justice Employee Possessor Letter of Clearance, dated 20 September 2012. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states, he has attended and passed several classes and achieved numerous certifications following his separation date. 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 of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 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 since leaving the Army he has attended and passed several classes and achieved numerous certifications. 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. 5. The applicant contends that the charges against him were dismissed and expunged from his record. However, this action is a procedural step which is part of a normal process, when an alternative forum is chosen. In this case, the charges were dismissed because the applicant entered and successfully completed a deferred prosecution agreement with the prosecutor. 6. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 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: Records Review Date: 27 May 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 1 No Change: 4 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) AR20140008339 Page 2 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1