IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 28 January 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140017806 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 to upgrade the characterization of his service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable, and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. 2. The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, his commander did not try to “rehabilitate” or provide him with another opportunity. He was seen by a doctor for a mental health evaluation, which indicated; there was no evidence of a mental disorder that would require disposition through medical channels, and the doctor further opined he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceeding, and that he was mentally responsible. However, on 8 August 2008, he was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by the VA, with 50 percent disability. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 6 October 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 16 February 205 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Rear Detachment, Task Force Curran, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Polk, LA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 3 January 2001, 6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years, 1 month, 13 days h. Total Service: 4 years, 1 month, 13 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 14S10, Avenger Crewmember m. GT Score: 96 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Korea, SWA p. Combat Service: Iraq (030425-040711) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM; AAM; NDSM; GWOTEM; GWOTSM; ASR OSR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 January 2001, for a period of 6 years. He was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 14S10, Avenger Crewmember. He served in Iraq and Korea. He earned a ARCOM and an AAM. He completed 4 years, 1 month, and 13 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 15 December 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 misconduct (serious offense), specifically for the following incidents: a. failing to report for work on six separate occasions (041019, 041013, 040923, 040917, 040909, and 040901), and b. 14 November 2004, SPC Wiley recklessly operating a vehicle at a high rate of speed while under the influence of alcohol (041114). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 25 January 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not 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. In an undated memorandum, 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 16 February 2005, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and a RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Article 15, dated 16 November 2004, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on six separate occasions (041019, 0041013, 040923, 040917, 040909, and 040901). The punishment portion of the proceedings was left blank (CG). 2. Fourteen negative counseling statements, dated between 22 November 2002 and 18 November 2004, for disobeying a lawful order; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time; bar to reenlistment being initiated; single Soldier privileges being revoked; being AWOL; being disrespectful towards a superior commissioned officer; operating a vehicle with two driver’s licenses; operating a vehicle with suspended license; and being arrested for driving with a BAC of .075 percent. 3. An MP Report, dated 14 November 2004, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for reckless operation of a vehicle, exhibition of speed, aggravated flight from an officer, and operating a vehicle while intoxicated. 4. Memorandum, dated 8 November 2004, subject: Mental Health Evaluation of [the applicant], indicates the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative or judicial action deemed appropriate by the applicant’s command. 5. A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 16 November 2004, for driving while intoxicated. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a mental status evaluation, dated 8 November 2004; Neuropsychological Evaluation, dated 13 January 2009; and pages 3 and 4 of the VA decision letter. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant provided none. 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, misconduct (serious offense). 5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned a SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned a RE Code of 3. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge and to change the narrative reason for 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 serious incidents 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 an Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a GOMOR, and numerous 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 his commander did not provide him the opportunity for rehabilitation or another chance. However, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. Further, AR 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self-referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance. In addition, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. 5. The applicant contends the Veterans Administration has granted him a service connected disability for PTSD. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 8 November 2004, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible and was able to recognize right from wrong. Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully. 6. Furthermore, if the applicant contends that medical issues may have contributed to his discharge from the Army, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and insufficient evidence to support his contention has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was 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. Essentially, the available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. 7. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. Accordingly, the records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 8. 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: 28 January 2015 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) AR20140017806 Page 7 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1