IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 June 2015 CASE NUMBER AR20140008484 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge to be 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, and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, an upgrade would allow him to use his Post 9/11 GI Bill and continue his education. He served honorably which included a combat tour and receiving a Purple Heart. When he transferred from a combat unit to a training unit, he felt mentally incapable of finishing his service. Short of completing his enlistment, he broke down mentally due to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and dealing with a lot of family issues at home. He informed his superiors that he could not do it anymore. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 12 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 24 October 2006 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: C Trp, 1st Sqdn, 16th Cavalry Regiment, Fort Knox, KY f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 16 June 2004, 4 years (NIF) (per unit commander’s forwarding memorandum) g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 4 months, 9 days h. Total Service: 4 years, 6 months, 23 days i. Time Lost: 6 days (confinement) j. Previous Discharges: RA (020402-040615) / HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 19D10, Cavalry Scout m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Iraq (040306-050401) q. Decorations/Awards: PH; ARCOM; AAM; AGCM; NDSM; ASR; OSR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 April 2002 (per enlistment contract) and per the unit commander’s forwarding memorandum, the applicant reenlisted on 16 June 2004, for a period of 4 years. He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 19D10, Cavalry Scout. He served in Iraq. He earned a PH, an ARCOM, and an AAM. He completed 4 years, 6 months, and 23 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 21 September 2006 (as acknowledging receipt by the applicant), 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 incidents: a. Since 18 January 2006, he has received over 20 negative counseling statements for missing accountability formations or for failing to be at his appointed place of duty. b. On 14 September 2005, he was confined for six days by a county sheriff’s department for driving under the influence of alcohol. c. On 12 June 2006, he received a CG Article 15 for failing to be at his appointed place of duty on two separate occasions. d. On 19 September 2006, he received another CG Article 15 for driving while his installation driving privileges were suspended on 11 August 2006 and 5 September 2006. e. Under the same Article 15, he was also charged with failing to be at his appointed place of duty on three separate occasions. 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 22 September 2006, 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 3 October 2006, 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 24 October 2006, 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 record of service indicates 6 days of time lost for being confined by the civilian authorities. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Article 15, dated 19 September 2006, for violating a lawful regulation on two separate occasions (060905 and 060811) and failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on three separate occasions (060907, 060809, and 060810). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $394, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction, (CG). 2. Article 15, dated 28 June 2006, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on two separate occasions (060612 and 060619). The punishment consisted of an oral reprimand and 14 days of extra duty and restriction, (CG). 3. Twenty-six negative counseling statements dated, between 10 April 2006 and 7 September 2006, for driving with a suspended license and speeding, including a second offense; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time; lying to an NCO; being caught driving without a driver’s license; disobeying a commissioned officer; violating his 72-hours quarters; receiving an Article 15; being required to move into barracks; and being dropped from a course. 4. An MP Desk Blotter, dated 5 September 2006, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for failing to obey a lawful order and for traffic violations by operating a motor vehicle while post privileges were suspended and speeding. 5. DD Form 2708, Receipt of Inmate or Detain Person, dated 5 September 2006, indicates the applicant was detained for driving with suspended license and speeding. 6. Memorandum, dated 30 September 2005, subject: Administrative Reduction Action for [the applicant], indicates the recommendation to administratively reduce the applicant to PFC/E-3 was due to being found guilty for DUI by a civilian court on 14 September 2005, was approved. 7. DA Form 4187, Personnel Action, dated 6 September 2005, indicates the applicant’s duty status changed from PDY to Civilian Confinement, effective 2 September 2005. 8. DD Form 2807-1, Report of Medical History, provides that the applicant had mental health issues. The form also noted a surgical history and hospitalization for forehead wound and concussion sustained in Iraq. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided DD Form 214 for service under current review. 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. 2. After examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, and issues submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to honorable for the following reasons: a. Length and quality of service: The applicant served a total of 4 years, 6 month, and 23 days, thus the preponderance of his service was honorable. b. The record confirms the applicant served in combat and was awarded a PH. He also earned an ARCOM and an AAM. c. The applicant’s record reflects documentary evidence of his mental health issues relating to PTSD and TBI existed at the time of his discharge as indicated in his health record. 3. This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct. The PTSD evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service may now be too harsh and as a result inequitable. 4. In view of the foregoing, the characterization of the discharge appearing to be inequitable, it is recommended the Board grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. BOARD DETERMINATION AND DIRECTED ACTION After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation, the Board determined the discharge to be proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 3 June 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) AR20140008484 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1