IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 21 October 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140015063 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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, he would like to use his educational benefits. He contends that his medical condition caused his misconduct and his supervisor had no concept of his disability. He contends he should have been receiving medical treatment instead of being pressured. He contends he suffered from a sleeping disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), flat feet, and an ankle injury. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 22 August 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 7 March 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200 JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Company E, 1-52nd Aviation Regiment, Fort Wainwright, AK f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 20 May 2009/5 years, 23 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 9 months, 18 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 9 months, 18 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist m. GT Score: 102 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Pakistan (100905-101223) q. Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, HSM, ASR 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 Regular Army on 20 May 2009, for a period of 5 years and 23 weeks. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Pakistan and earned an AAM. He completed 3 years, 9 months, 18 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceeding were initiated, he was serving at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 14 February 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense); specifically for being apprehended on 20 January 2013, by the State of Alaska for driving under the influence, and having a weapon in his possession. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 14 February 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in 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 19 February 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 7 March 2013, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ, 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. Four negative counseling statements, dated (120936-130225), for driving under the influence of alcohol, failing to obey an order or regulation, and failing to report x 2 (120916 and 120928). 2. Article 15, dated 26 October 2012, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 2 (120916 and 120928). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $462 pay (suspended), 14 days of extra duty and an oral reprimand (CG). 3. Article 15, dated 31 January 2013, for making a false official statement and failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (121121). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-2 and an oral reprimand (CG). 4. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 30 January 2013, reflects the applicant had no obvious impairments, and no mental health diagnoses. He screened negatively for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI). EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 4 June 2014, 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, 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. The applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge due to his misconduct. The applicant’s record of service was marred by two CG Article 15s and four 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 that medical issues contributed to his discharge from the Army. However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate he acted the way he did based on the result of a 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. 5. The applicant contends he suffered from several medical issues to include PTSD. However, the service record contains no evidence of a PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 6. The applicant contends he should have received treatment through his chain of command instead of being pressured. 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. As stated previously, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge should have been the result of a medical condition. 7. Further, the applicant 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. 8. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 9. 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: Record Review Date: 21 October 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No 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) AR20140015063 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1