BOARD DATE:	  19 June 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110021893 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that her general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states she:

	a.  Was advised by the sergeants with whom she served to apply to this Board for correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

   b.  Was processed for discharge by a noncommissioned officer (NCO) who is now in a mental program.

   c.  Believes she treated unfairly because two other Soldiers were issued non-judicial punishment (NJP) for failing their drug testing while she was referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) solely because someone claimed they witnessed her drinking.
   
   d.  Was arrested for registering a 0.2 blood alcohol content (BAC) while driving as result of the use of cold medicine (Nyquil).  Although she was found not guilty this incident formed the basis for her discharge.




	e.  Never received NJP; however, the same NCO issued her about one hundred counseling statements without cause for reasons that include:

* allegedly missing sensitive items which were signed out by a drill sergeant
* being "late" for duty having arrived 10 instead of 15 minutes early
* being rude to the first sergeant although she was never in his presence

 f.  Cannot use her military educational benefits because she has a GD.  The GD will also affect her military nursing career opportunities.
 
 g.  Does not understand why the Army would place an NCO with massive post-traumatic stress disorder and a grudge against females in charge of Soldiers.
   
 h.  Cried, feared, and sweated every day doing a good job, won the respect of the other sergeants with whom she served, and was still put out of the Army.
 
 i.  Trusted God would deal with the NCO and she would go home, but she did not understand the importance of the information on her DD Form 214.
   
3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214
* eight character reference statements

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 July 2008.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist).

2.  The applicant’s record includes ten DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), nine of which were administered by her NCO in charge (NCOIC) and one was administered by her company commander.  She authenticated all of these documents with her signature and initialed next to the words "I agree."

3.  The ten DA Forms 4856 show she was formally counseled ten times between 10 June and 20 October 2009 and was given a negative recommendation for promotion for the following reasons:

* failing the Army Physical Fitness Test
* violating the wear and appearance of the uniform policy after she appeared for inspection with a tongue ring in her mouth
* underage drinking (twice) and driving, as a result she was command referred to ASAP 
* being disrespectful (twice)
* during a physical security and inventory management she was missing government property
* having in her possession fake or altered identification cards
* ASAP rehabilitation failure
* separation counseling due to misconduct

4.  On 28 October 2009, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and the results showed she demonstrated:

* normal behavior and thought content
* that she was fully alert and oriented
* a congruent affect
* a clear thinking process
* normal thought content
* good memory
* fair judgment and insight

5.  On 19 November 2009, the applicant received an administrative reprimand for being arrested for driving under influence (DUI) on 10 October 2009.  She acknowledged receipt on 23 November 2009.

6.  On 1 December 2009, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the administrative reprimand indicating the following:

* she attended a friend's birthday party where she consumed one alcoholic beverage
* while driving back to the barracks she was the subject of a random inspection, administered a breathalyzer test and blew a .023 BAC
* although she was well under the .08 BAC limit she was still charged with DUI because she was only age 20 years and below the legal drinking age
* she accepted full responsibility for her actions

7.  On 9 December 2009, the applicant’s commander informed the applicant of his intent to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, for patterns of misconduct.  The commander cited the applicant's disciplinary history, the developmental counseling, and administrative reprimand as the basis for his recommendation.  The commander informed the applicant of her right to consult with legal counsel, to obtain copies of documents pertaining to the separation action, to request a hearing before an administrative board (if accrued 6 or more years of active or Reserve service), to be represented by either or both military and civilian counsel, to waive her rights, and/or to submit a request for a conditional waiver of any rights.  

8.  On 15 December 2009, the applicant consulted with counsel and elected to submit statements in her own behalf.  The applicant's statements are not a part of the available separation packet.

9.  On 28 January 2010, the applicant's commander recommended that she be separated prior to the expiration of term of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of "A Pattern of Misconduct."

10.  O 28 January 2010, the separation authority approved the applicant's administrative separation action and directed the issuance of a GD.  

11.  On 11 February 2010, the applicant was discharged.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant confirms she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, due to a pattern of misconduct, with a GD.  It also shows she completed 1 year, 6 months, and 27 days of creditable active service and that she held the rank/grade of private first class (PFC/E-3) at the time of discharge.

12.  The applicant provides seven character reference statements, five of which were a part of her separation packet during the discharge process.  The statements were from Soldiers who held ranks from sergeant (SGT)/E-5 to master sergeant (MSG/E-8).  These Soldiers indicated the applicant:

* was just beginning her career and barely had the opportunity to grow and reach her full potential
* with the right teaching, coaching, training, and mentoring, she could be a positive addition to the Army
* did not have the leadership that is required to guide Soldiers on the right path
* demonstrated a lot of potential to grow into her military occupational specialty
* lacked confidence
* showed professionalism above and beyond reproach
* completed any and all tasks assigned with little or no guidance without complaint
* was always prompt, lived the Soldier's creed, and ensured that the Soldiers around her were likewise
* was the hardest working private he had encountered in 10 years of service (statement was made by a SGT)

13.  On 31 October 2011, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant's discharge was both proper and equitable and denied relief.  However, the ADRB determined that based on the reason and authority for the applicant's discharge, item 27 (Reentry Code) of her DD Form 214 should be corrected to show a "3" instead of "4."

14.  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, commission of a serious offense that could result in a punitive discharge, convictions by civil authorities, 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 (UOTHC) is normally appropriate.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends her GD should be upgraded to an HD.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  The applicant's overall record of service was considered and resulted in the issuance of a GD instead of the UOTHC discharge that is normally appropriate for members separated for misconduct.  The applicant's disciplinary history clearly diminished the overall qualify of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge, and the GD she received accurately reflects the overall quality of her service.
4.  In addition, in her rebuttal to the reprimand she received for being arrested for underage drinking while driving she admitted to having at least one drink and did not mention using Nyquil.  The applicant's record shows she committed a number of other offenses to include having altered identification; therefore, her service did not support the issuance of an HD by the separation authority at the time of discharge nor does it support an upgrade to an HD at this time.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_X____  _X_______  __X______  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




      _______ _ X  _______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110021893



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110021893



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1