IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 13 May 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140008874 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 characterization from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was improper, because it was based on minor events during a difficult transition trying to adapt to a work environment after redeploying from Afghanistan. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 19 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 22 January 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct , AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 530th Engineer Company, 92nd Engineer Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, Fort Stewart, GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 16 September 2009, 3 years and 20 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 4 months, 3 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 4 months, 3 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist m. GT Score: 91 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (110315-120312) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-W/2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL, MUC r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: No t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 September 2009, for a period of 3 years and 20 weeks. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a HS Graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist. His record also shows he served a combat tour, earned an ARCOM; and he achieved the rank of SPC/E-4. He was serving at Fort Stewart, GA, when his discharge was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 20 December 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 for the following offenses: a. failing to go to his appointed place of duty x 11 (120525, 120702, 120906, 120907, 120927, 121003, 121015, 121121, 121123, 121124, 121125), b. disobeying an order from a SFC x 3 (081221, 081222, 120927), c. being disrespectful in deportment towards SFC P (120822), d. making a false official statement x 2 (121123, 121124), and e. disobeying a direct order from SSG R (121124). 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 20 December 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board (although he was not entitled to a board), 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 7 January 2013, 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 22 January 2013, 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. A FG Article 15, dated 2 November 2012, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, x 3 (120927, 121003, 121015); and disobeying a lawful order from SFC D (120927); the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $745 pay, extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 45 days (suspended). 2. A CG Article 15, dated 2 October 2012, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 2 (120906, 120907); disobeying a lawful order from a SFC x 2 (120821, 120822); and being disrespectful in deportment towards SFC P (120822); the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $389 pay, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. 3. A CG Article 15, dated 17 August 2012, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 2 (120522, 120702); the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $345 pay (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 14 days. 4. On 11 September 2012, the suspension of punishment of reduction to E-3 was vacated for the new offense of disobeying a lawful order from a SFC (120821). 5. He received numerous counseling statements dated between 5 June 2012 and 28 November 2012, for missing an appointment, failing to report numerous times, missing telephone checks, disobeying an order, missing formation, and initiating separation action under Chapter 14-12b, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any information with his 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. ANALYST’S DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the issues and documents 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 his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by three Articles 15, a suspension of punishment, and numerous 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 his discharge was improper, because it was based on minor events during a difficult transition trying to adapt to a work environment after redeploying from Afghanistan. The service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. 5. Further, 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. 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, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 13 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) AR20140008874 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1