IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 14 November 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140015666 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 states, in effect, he was a good Soldier that did not understand the options that were presented to him by his commanding officer. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 28 August 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 29 February 2000 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: C Company, 16th Ordnance Battalion Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 6 July 1999/3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 7 months, 25 days h. Total Service: 7 months, 25 days i. Time Lost: 2 days j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 990619-990705, N/A k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 52D10, Power Generator Equipment Repairer m. GT Score: 97 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: ASR 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 6 July 1999, for a period of 3 years. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He completed 7 months and 6 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 23 February 2000, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct; specifically, for receiving a FG Article 15 for the following offenses: a. failing to be at his appointed place of duty on two separate occasions; b. disobeying lawful orders; and c. assault. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 24 February 2000, 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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 24 February 2000, 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 29 February 2000, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant's record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) for one day (000104-000105). The record does not specify the means in which the applicant was returned to military control. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. An Article 15, dated 19 November 1999, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on two occasions (991114). The punishment consisted of 3 days of extra duty and restriction (CG). 2. Several negative counseling statements, dated between 14 November 1999 and 12 February 2000, for failing to obey lawful orders, violating company policy letters, failing to be at appointed place of duty at the prescribed time, assault, horse playing, and destruction of government property. 3. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 17 February 2000, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. 4. 4187's for AWOL on 03 JAN 00 and PDY 05 JAN 00. 5. MP report dated 22 JAN 00 citing the applicant as the subject of complaints of failure to obey a lawful order, escape from custody, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 17 February 2000, 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 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 misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15 and numerous counseling statements 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 he had good service and deserves an honorable characterization. However, by regulation, an UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct. It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. 5. The applicant contends his discharge should be upgraded because he did not understand his options that were presented to him by his commanding officer. However, the issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. 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: 14 November 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) AR20140015666 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1