IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 23 July 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140008803 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on misbehavior attributed and linked to PTSD after returning deployment. He contends prior to those events his service was exemplary. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 16 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 30 September 2009 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHB, 2nd Bn, 320th FA Regt, Fort Campbell, KY f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 3 August 2006, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 1 month, 28 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 1 month, 28 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist m. GT Score: 108 n. Education: GED o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia p. Combat Service: Iraq (071112-081122) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, ICM-w/CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 August 2006, for a period of 4 years. He was 22 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED). His record indicates he served in Iraq; achieved the rank of PFC/E-3; and achieved several awards to include the ARCOM. He completed 3 years, 1 month, and 28 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 12 August 2009, 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 pattern of misconduct for multiple instances of failing to report. 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 2 September 2009, the applicant waived his right to legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and submitted a statement on his 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 17 September 2009, 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 30 September 2009, 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, with 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. Article 15, imposed on 9 March 2009, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (090220) and dereliction in the performance of his duties (090220). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $366.00 per month for one month (suspended), and extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG). 2. A Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 10 April 2009, which vacates the suspension of punishment of forfeiture of $366.00 for one month imposed on 9 March 2009, for breaking restriction (090319). 3. Article 15, imposed on 29 April 2009, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (090221) and breaking restriction (090319). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $699.00 per month for two months (suspended), and extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG). 4. A Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 20 May 2009, which vacates the suspension of punishment of forfeiture of $699.00 for two months imposed on 29 April 2009, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (090502). 5. Article 15, imposed on 11 June 2009, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 3 (090514, 090515, and 090517). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of forfeiture of $699.00 per month for two months (suspended), and extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG). 6. A Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 30 June 2009, which vacates the suspension of punishment of forfeiture of $699.00 for two months imposed on 11June 2009, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (090614). 7. Nine negative counseling statements dated between 20 Februry 2009 and 9 July 2009, concerning his room being dirty and not neat, failing to show for PT formation, counseling for disobeying orders, failure to report to place of duty, being incarcerated, being late for extra duty, drunk on duty, simple assault, breaking restriction, failure to comply with ASAP contract EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None provide 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, 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. The applicant’s record of service was marred by 3 Articles 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to include a record of supplementary actions under Article 15, UCMJ and several 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 he had good service and deserves an honorable characterization. However, by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of pattern of misconduct. It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. 5. The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on misbehavior attributed to and linked to PTSD after returning from deployment. The independent document submitted by the applicant, dated 17 October 2011 indicating the applicant's PTSD screening test (PTSD 4Q) was positive (score=3) was noted. However, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 6. 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. 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: 23 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) AR20140008803 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1