IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 September 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140009696 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he was going through marital difficulties and the leaders of his unit were against him. He contends that, rather than being humiliated by his spouse and leaders, he took it upon himself to miss morning physical training (PT) and went to behavioral health. He further contends that at the age of 23, he believed that it was the most reasonable and common decision to make. The applicant contends that he served his time and did it well, notably adding that he led as the Warrior Leaders Course (WLC) Student First Sergeant, as well as serving a tour in Iraq. The applicant contends that he has learned his lesson and would like to go back to school to better his life and clear his name. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 3 June 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 16 April 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 590th Quartermaster Company, 548th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion (Rear) (Provisional), Fort Drum, NY f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 2 December 2010/2 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 4 months, 15 days h. Total Service: 5 years, 8 months, 22 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 000630-0060725, NA RA, 060726-101201, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92S10, Shower/Laundry and Clothing Repair Specialist m. GT Score: 87 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Iraq (090611-100611) q. Decorations/Awards: AAM, ICM-2CS, NDSM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NPDR, 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 26 July 2006, for a period of 3 years. He reenlisted in the Regular Army on 2 December 2010, for a period of 2 years. He was 24 years old at the time of reenlistment and a high school graduate. He served in Iraq, earned an AAM, and completed 5 years, 8 months, and 22 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Drum, New York. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 20 March 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for pattern of misconduct. Specifically for showing a distinct lack of discipline over the past year by: a. failing to be at his appointed place of duty on numerous occasions b. disrespecting noncommissioned officers, and c. disobeying direct orders 2. Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 20 March 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. The applicant’s record is void of the statement. 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 March 2012, the separation authority approved and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on15 April 2012, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA, and an RE code of RE-3. 6. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Article 15, dated 8 September 2011, failed to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 4 occasions (110321, 110506, 110513, 110714). The applicant did not appeal the charges brought against him. The punishment consisted of 14 days extra duty. (CG) 2. Article 15, dated 3 January 2012, failed to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (111101), disobeyed a lawful order on 2 occasions (111101, 111103), and disrespectful in language and deportment (111121). The applicant appealed the charges brought against him. The record is void of the appeal. On 19 January 2012, the applicant’s appeal was denied by the battalion commander. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $462.00 (suspended), and 14 days extra duty. (CG) 3. Article 15, dated 17 February 2012, failed to go to his appointed place of duty 5 occasions (120112 x2, 120113, 120206, 120207), disrespectful in deportment on 2 occasions (120111, 120112), and disobeyed a lawful order (120111). The applicant appealed the charges brought against him. The record is void of the appeal. On 2 March 2012, the applicant’s appeal was denied by the brigade commander. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $745.00 per month for two months, and 45 days extra duty. (FG) 4. Seventeen negative counseling statements dated between 15 March 2011 and 29 February 2012, for failure to be at his appointed place of duty on time, disrespect towards a noncommissioned officer, and disobeying a lawful order. 5. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 15 February 2012, reflects that the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. 6. DA Form 2627 (Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 9 February 2012, vacated the suspension of punishment, forfeiture of $462.00 pay, imposed on 3 January 2012. The vacation was based on the applicant’s offense of failing to go to his appointed place of duty on 7 January 2012. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: None were provided with the application. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None were 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 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; Supplementary Action 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 was having family issues that affected his behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. 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. 5. The applicant contends his leaders were against him. However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. Furthermore, 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 applicant contends he was young and believed missing morning PT was the most reasonable decision to make. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 7. The applicant contends instead of going to morning PT, he went to behavior health. The service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. 8. 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. 9. The applicant contends that he had good service, which included serving as the WLC Student First Sergeant and serving a tour in Iraq. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding 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. 10. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 11. 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: 26 September 2014 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) AR20140009696 Page 7 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1