IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 October 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140014656 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was inequitable and improper. He states when his separation packet was being put together there was omission of evidence and witness statements that purposely disregarded testimonies of witnesses that could have seriously impacted his story. He states that some of the statements against him were false and malicious. He states he was accused of being a racist and was subjected to rumors and hazing. He believes he was unfairly targeted despite being cleared and transferred to a new unit for a clean start. He contends he was denied legal aid and not provided the proper information to defend himself. He only received one Article 15 which does not constitute a pattern of misconduct for the environment he was in. He believes the first incident he was involved in was considered self-defense and there were false and malicious statements made by witnesses on the second incident. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 13 August 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 20 June 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Company A, 2-13th Infantry Regiment, Fort Jackson, SC f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: NIF g. Current Enlistment Service: NIF h. Total Service: 7 months, 19 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: ARNG, (121102-121113), NA (Concurrent Service) k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: None m. GT Score: 128 n. Education: College Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: None r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 2 November 2012, for a period of 8 years. He was 25 years old at the time of entry and a college graduate. His record is void of any acts of valor and achievement. He completed 7 months and 19 days of creditable military service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 30 May 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. Specifically for being unable to complete basic combat training due to not meeting the minimum standards to graduate because of multiple infractions. He received a CG Article 15 for violation of Article 128, assault and received a new-start from another battalion. 2. Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 30 May 2013, 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. As a note, the applicant’s rebuttal statement was not found in the record. 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 10 June 2013, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on 20 June 2013, 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 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 22 March 2013, for unlawfully choking PVT M. around the neck with his arms. The punishment consisted of ten days of extra duty (CG). 2. One counseling statement, dated 30 April 2013, for referral to the RCLNO for Chapter 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. 3. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 10 May 2013, reflects the applicant had no obvious impairments and knew the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with disturbance in conduct. 4. Orders Number 168-1313, DA, HQs US Training Center and Fort Jackson, Fort Jackson, SC, dated 17 June 2013, released the applicant from active duty for training, discharged from the Reserve of the Army, and returned to the ARNG, effective 20 June 2013. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 10 May 2014, an undated self-authored statement to the Board, five statements, a photograph, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any in support of 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. 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, 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 a CG Article 15 and a negative counseling statement. 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 both improper and inequitable because he only received one Article 15 and statements were omitted during the preparation of his separation packet. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discriminated. In fact, the applicant’s CG Article 15 and negative counseling statement justify a pattern of misconduct. The applicant’s statement alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. 5. Further, although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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: 21 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) AR20140014656 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1