RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  10 April 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060013125 


	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.



	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that her general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she wants to gain access to her Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) educational benefits.   

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report and Directive, dated 2 February 2006; a copy of her DVA Rating Decision, dated 21 June 2006; a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); and copies of her college transcripts and associated educational loans.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After prior service in the U.S. Army Reserve, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 January 2001, for a period of 3 years.  She was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M (Motor Transport Officer). On 1 May 2003, she reenlisted for a period of 3 years.

2.  The applicant attained the grade of specialist/E-4 and received the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with auto Rifle Bar.

3.  On 24 May 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations) by reason of misconduct – pattern of misconduct, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The unit commander indicated that he was initiating separation action because the applicant lied to noncommissioned and commissioned officers, disobeyed a direct order, a domestic altercation, failed to pay her just debts, and larceny.  He also indicated that she had received two Article 15s.  The Article 15s are not contained in the official record.  

4.  On 25 May 2004, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested appearance before an administrative separation board.




5.  On 10 June 2004, the unit commander disqualified the applicant for receipt of the Good Conduct Medal.

6.  On 6 August 2004, a board of officers convened.  The applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended separation by reason of a pattern of misconduct with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

7.  On 15 August 2004, the applicant submitted a statement to the separation authority indicating that her misconduct was a result of her medical problems and requested that she be discharged through the physical disability system.

8.  On 2 September 2004, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board, waived further rehabilitative efforts, determined that her medical condition was not a direct or substantial contributing cause of her misconduct, and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.   

9.  On 22 September 2004, the applicant was discharged by reason of a pattern of misconduct after completing 3 years, 7 months, and 28 days of active military service in the period under review.

10.  On 2 February 2006, the ADRB upgraded the applicant's discharge to general, under honorable conditions based on equity, her overall length and quality of service.  

11.  The applicant provided copies of her transcripts from Kaplan University, a copy of her financial aid award, and estimated tuition costs.

12.  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 and patterns of misconduct such as frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, commission of a serious offense, and desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.  





13.  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 (emphasis added), 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and she was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  There is no indication of procedural errors which would tend to have jeopardized her rights.  She was entitled to an administrative separation board, and after presenting her evidence and giving testimony, thar Board recommended she receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The ADRB, after careful consideration of her evidence, determined that her service was consistent with the standards for receipt of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  This decision was based on her overall length and quality of service.  

3.  This Board found insufficient evidence to show the applicant's quality of service is consistent with the Army's standard for receipt of an honorable discharge.  Therefore, there is no justification to change the applicant's characterization of service to honorable.

4.  The Board does not change an individual's characterization of service for the purpose of gaining access to educational benefits.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__klw___  __lmd___  __eif___  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




							Kenneth L. Wright
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060013125
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20070410
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(GD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
20040922
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, Cha 14
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.6000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.