IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 July 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140010310 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 did not present any issues of equity and propriety for the board to consider. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 9 June 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 12 April 2008 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 178th Finance Company, United States Army Troop Command, Yongsan, Korea f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 20 June 2007/3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 9 months, 24 days h. Total Service: 4 years, 2 months, 29 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: RA, 040114-070619, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 44C10, Financial Management Technician m. GT Score: 110 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Korea, Germany p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: JSAM, AAM-4, AGCM, NDSM, GWTSM, KDSM, 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 14 January 2004, for a period of 4 years and subsequently reenlisted on 20 June 2007. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Korea and Germany, earned four AAMs, and completed 4 years, 2 months, and 29 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving in Yongsan, Korea. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 24 March 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, by reason of pattern of misconduct. Specifically for being disobedient to numerous NCOs on divers occasions, lying to a NCO, making verbal threats to a NCO, communicating to fellow Soldiers that he would like to put a bullet in the heads of two NCOs, and failing to report to his appointed place of duty. 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 25 March 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action; voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant submitted a statement on his own behalf. In the statement, the applicant chronicles his time in the military and requests the imposing authority give him a second chance to prove he can be a better Soldier. 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 1 April 2008, 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 12 April 2008, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for 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. Four negative counseling statements, dated between 23 January 2008 and 2 March 2008, for disobeying a NCO, disobeying lawful orders, insubordinate conduct, making threats to a NCO, recommendation of UCMJ, recommendation for bar to reenlistment, recommendation to initiate separation from the Army, and failing to be at his appointed place of duty. 2. MEDCOM Form 699-R (Mental Status Evaluation), dated 6 March 2008, reflects that the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. It was noted in the remarks section that applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder NOS and alcohol abuse. It was also noted in paragraph 5, a discharge from the Army in accordance with paragraph 5-17, AR 635-200, would be in the best interests of both the individual and the Army.” EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 2 June 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None was 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. The applicant did not present any issues of equity or propriety for the board to consider. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service and his military records, 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. 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 records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 5. 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: 15 July 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) AR20140010310 Page 2 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1