IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 October 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140010596 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he was young when he made a mistake. The applicant states that it was an honor to serve his country and he took great pride in doing so. He contends, as a veteran, he would like to be eligible for benefits. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 13 June 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 3 May 2004 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Headquarters and Service Battery, 3d Bn 27th Field Artillery Regiment Fort Bragg, NC f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 20 September 2002/4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 7 months, 14 days h. Total Service: 10 years, 10 months, 3 days i. Time Lost: 1 day j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 920730-930629, NA RA, 930630-961124, HD RA, 961125-990311, HD RA, 990312-020919, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-5 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92A10, Automated Logistics Specialist m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Germany p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NPDR ASR, OSR r. Administrative Separation Board: Yes s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 June 1993, for a period of 4 years. He reenlisted in the Regular Army on 20 September 2002, for a period of 4 years. He was 27 years old at the time of reenlistment and a high school graduate. He served in Germany, earned an ARCOM and AAM, and completed 10 years, 10 months, and 3 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 23 March 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct (commission of a serious offense). Specifically for the following offenses: a. wrongful use of marijuana b. AWOL c. assault with a deadly weapon d. assault on a female, and e. communicating threats 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 2 April 2004, the applicant submitted a statement on his own behalf. The applicant states that the Army is all he knows, he was an outstanding NCO who took pride in his job and taking care of his Soldiers. His problems stemmed from a deceitful spouse. The urinalysis was simply a case of a family member not realizing the severity of his actions, providing a tobacco pipe containing a mixture of tobacco and marijuana. He is human and that humans make mistakes. He had a moral dilemma, choosing to follow through on a promise he made to his seven year old son, or adhere to the imposed restriction to the barracks. He chose to follow through on his promise; thus, being charged with AWOL. He sums up the statement with “no matter what is going to come of all this, I wouldn’t trade the last 11 years of service for anything in this world.” 4. On 5 April 2004, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and elected not to 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 5. On 14 April 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 6. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 15 July 2007, with a characterization of service of general, under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3. 7. The applicant’s service record contains evidence of an unauthorized absence of one day (031216-031217). EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There is one positive urinalysis reports contained in the record: IR, Inspection Random, 20 November 2003, marijuana 2. Article 15, dated 5 January 2003, wrongfully use marijuana (between on or about 031021 and 031120) and, without authority, absent himself from his unit (031217). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of $912.00 per month for two months (suspended), 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG). 3. One negative counseling statement, dated 10 December 2003, obligation to provide family financial support. 4. A MP Report dated 29 March 2003, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for assault on a female, assault with a deadly weapon, and communicating threats. 5. Memorandum, Womack Army Medical Center, Department of Social Work, dated 25 September 2003, report of child neglect regarding the applicant’s children, applicant and spouse named as alleged offenders. The Fort Bragg Case Review Committee (CRC) conducted an investigation of the alleged incident and determined the following: a. substantiated mild child neglect, with the parents as the offenders. b. spouse abuse case was substantiated as severe emotional abuse, with the applicant as the offender. c. recommended treatment included anger management class, male support group, and children’s and parents crisis group. 6. DD Form 2697 (Report of Medical Assessment), dated 8 January 2004, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 30 April 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None 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 serious misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general or a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by one Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 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 that he was young at the time he made a mistake. 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. 5. The applicant has expressed his desire to be eligible for benefits as a veteran. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, 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. 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, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 1 October 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No Counsel: None 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: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change 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) AR20140010596 Page 7 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1