Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/06/29	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA 

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that when she was counseled by her commander she was told she would be discharged under chapter 5-8 for not having a proper family care plan.  It was not until she went to her discharge briefing that she was told it was categorized as misconduct.  Her unit was deploying and there was a change in command which made the situation hectic.  She feels that she did not receive a fair chance in the situation.   She heard about the 911 GI Bill, she applied and was approved.  A year later she was notified that after review she was no longer eligible and had to repay all the funds provided to her and the college.  

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 030519
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 030625   Chapter: 14-12b     AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct 	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: 13th Chemical Company, 2d Chemical Battalion, 13th Corps Support Command, Fort Hood, TX 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 020813, failed to obey a lawful order by not physically signing in from leave, (020611); without authority failed to go to the time prescribed to her place of duty, 0700 PT formation (020712);  without authority failed to go to the time prescribed to her place of duty, (020715); reduction to E-2, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (031110), forfeiture of $289.00, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (021110); and extra duty for 14 days, (CG).

030329, without authority failed to go to the time prescribed to her place of duty, 0630 PT formation, (030318); without authority failed to go to the time prescribed to her place of duty, 1700 Staff Duty Building 16001, (030318); without authority failed to go to the time prescribed to her place of duty, 2100 Staff Duty Building 16001, (030318); disobeyed a lawful order received from K.M., to report to building 3903 and sign in at the CQ desk with SDNCO every two hours from 1700-2200 for a period of two weeks; did treat with disrespect K.M., by saying to him “I do not care,” and “chain of command must do what they have to do as far as counseling me and rehabilitative training,” (030319); reduction to    E-2, forfeiture of $301.00 pay per month for one month, extra duty for 14 days, (CG).

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  17
Current ENL Date: 000707    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2  Yrs, 11 Mos, 19 Days ?????
Total Service:  		2  Yrs, 11 Mos, 19 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92Y10 Unit Supply Specialist   GT: 99   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR


V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Tamarac, FL
Post Service Accomplishments: None

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 19 May 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for patterns of misconduct, for failing to report six times and receiving two Company Grade Article 15's with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  
       
       On 19 May 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived her right to an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions and submitted a statement in her 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 of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 3 June 2003, the separation authority approved the conditional waiver request, waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 of this regulation 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 absence 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.   

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of the applicant’s available military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By her misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       
       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.  
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's contention that she believed she was going to be discharged under the provisions of chapter 5-8 for failing to have a family care plan; however, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  
       
             The applicant contends that the narrative reason for her discharge should be changed.  However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Pattern of Misconduct ", and the separation code is "JKA."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.  
       
       
       The analys noted the applicant's issue that she did not receive a fair chance; however, before initiating action to separate the applicant, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about the deficiencies, which could lead to separation.  The analyst noted the command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory Soldier.  The evidence of record established that the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies.  As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service. 
       The applicant's issue concerning the GI Bill was noted; however, the issue the applicant has raised, does not fall within the purview of this Board.  Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance in resolving her issue.
       
        Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 27 January 2012         Location: Washington, D. C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 with a self-authored statement, list of total debt owed, request for records and a DD Form 214

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. 
        
IX.  Board Decision						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)













X.  Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to: 
Change Reason to: No Change
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




EDGAR J. YANGER
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder























Legend:
AWOL    	Absent Without Leave		GCM   General Court Martial	NA   Not applicable			SCM	Summary Court Martial
BCD   	Bad Conduct Discharge	GD      General Discharge	NIF   Not in the file			SPCM	Special Court Martial
CG 	Company Grade Article 15	HD      Honorable Discharge	OAD   Ordered to Active Duty		UNC	Uncharacterized Discharge  
DD 	Dishonorable Discharge	HS       High School Graduate	OMPF   Official Military Personnel File	UOTH  	Under Other Than Honorable 
FG	Field Grade Article 15		IADT   Initial Active Duty Training	RE     Reentry Code				Conditions 

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20110013845
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages