IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 14 January 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140017225 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during 48 months of service with no other adverse action. There was no regard for his good conduct and achievements during his active duty service. He was forced out and not given a chance to regain his honor. Since being discharged he has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 29 September 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 14 February 2014 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: A Co, 1-22nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, Fort Carson, CO f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 4 January 2008, 3 years and 16 weeks/6 month extension (091203) g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years, 1 month, 11 days h. Total Service: 4 years, 1 month, 11 days i. Lost time: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10, Infantryman m. GT Score: 97 n. Education: GED Certificate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia p. Combat Service: Iraq (080630-090315)/Afghanistan (100802-110624) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-W/2 CS, ACM-W/2 CS, GWOTSM, NPDR, ASR, OSR-2, NATO MDL, CIB, VUA r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: No t. Counseling Statements: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 January 2008, for a period of 3 years and 16 weeks, with a 6 month extension on 12 December 2009. He was 22 years old at the time of entry with a GED Certificate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B10, Infantryman. His record shows he served two combat tours, earned several awards including two ARCOMs, two AAMs, an AGCM and a CIB; and he achieved the rank of SPC/E-4. He was serving at Fort Carson, CO when his discharge was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s service record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. However, the applicant submitted the unit commander’s recommendation memorandum with his application which indicated he was discharged for wrongfully assisting another Soldier to provide a substitute for his urine during a urinalysis test. 2. The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s digital signature. The DD Form 214 indicates on 14 February 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKQ and a reentry (RE) code of 3. 3. The applicant’s available record does not contain any recorded actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), unauthorized absences; time lost or negative counseling statements. However, he was separated as a PVT/E-1 and the action that caused his reduction is not contained in the service record. 4. On 7 February 2012, DA, Installation Management Command, HQS, US Army Garrison, Fort Carson, Fort Carson, CO, Orders Number 038-0029, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 14 February 2012. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Discharge Orders Number 038-0029, dated 7 February 2012. 2. A DD Form 214, dated 14 February 2012. 3. An Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, dated 4 January 2008. 4. An Oath of Extension of Reenlistment, dated 3 December 2009. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, two DD Forms 214, letter, Department of Veterans Affairs, summary of benefits, letter, Department of Veterans Affairs, disability compensation, background check, sworn statement (three pages), memorandum, separation under chapter 14 (three pages), three character statements, DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), oath of extension of reenlistment, two DA Forms 638 (Recommendation for Award), Enlisted Record Brief), DA Form 705 (Army physical Fitness Test Scorecard), two certificates of achievements, AAM certificate, AGCM certificate, letter, Neptune City Police Department, driver history, transcript, Brookdale Community College (two pages), marriage certificate, birth certificate, Montgomery GI Bill (three pages), police check, group life insurance certificate, and record of emergency data. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant stated he has been attending college since 2012 and certified as an EMT in New Jersey and gainfully employed. 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. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (serious offense). 5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge and a change to the narrative reason for separation was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, his available military records, the issue and document submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge or a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's digital signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. 3. The DD Form 214 also indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 4. The applicant requested a change to his narrative reason for separation. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (serious offense). The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized 5. The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during 48 months of service with no other adverse action. There is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination as to why the applicant was discharged and whether this contention has merit. However, the applicant submitted the unit commander’s recommendation memorandum with his application which indicated he was discharged for wrongfully assisting another Soldier to provide a substitute for his urine during a urinalysis test. 6. Further, although an isolated 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 an isolated incident provides the basis for a characterization of service. The applicant's isolated incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 7. The applicant further contends there was no regard for his good conduct and achievements during his active duty service. 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. There is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. 8. The applicant also contends he was forced out and not given a chance to regain his honor. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. 9. The applicant additionally contends since being discharged he was diagnosed with PTSD. The service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention his discharge was the result of any medical condition. 10. Furthermore, the applicant indicated on his application the VA granted him a service connected 40 percent disability rating for PTSD and his right knee. However, the VA document did not indicate if the disability rating was for his knee, PTSD or a combination thereof. 11. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record. 12. Therefore, based on the available evidence and the government presumption of regularity, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 14 January 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify: NA Counsel: No Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 2 No Change: 3 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) AR20140017225 Page 7 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1