Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/12/19	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that she was an outstanding Soldier but after years of abuse she lost her head.  She had PTSD and talked to her chain of command about being abused by her husband but they sided with him and she just could not take it anymore.  She feels that her discharge was as a result of an isolated incident.  She currently attends school and would like to rejoin the Army as an officer.

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: 110419
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 110604   Chapter: 14-12b    AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: A Co, AFSOUTH, Naples, Italy 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 110309, attempted to steal various items of clothing (101215), valued at $675, the property of another person; reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $1,162, 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG)

100428, wrongfully used a government travel card for unofficial expenses (091130-100201), theft of NEX property (100221), valued at $119.50, theft of NEX property (100228), valued at $213.05; reduction to E-5, extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG)

100304, failed to report (100205), disobeyed a lawful order from a superior NCO (100208); forfeiture of $653, extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  24
Current ENL Date: 080602    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 00 Mos, 02 Days ?????
Total Service:  		08 Yrs, 10 Mos, 26 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 020709-070218/HD
                                       RA 070219-080601/HD
Highest Grade: E-6		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 42A10/HR Spc   GT: 111   EDU: 3 years of college   Overseas: Italy, Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR, ASUA

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: Currently attending college.



VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 19 April 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct for on 15 December 2010 she attempted to steal various articles of clothing, through an on-line business using another Soldier’s bank information; between 30 November 2009 and 1 February 2010 she used her Government Travel Credit Card for unauthorized purchases; on 21 February 2010 and 28 February 2010 she stole from the Navy Exchange at Naples, Italy; on 5 February 2010 she failed to report to her place of duty; and on 8 February 2010 she willfully disobeyed a superior noncommissioned officer, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  
       
       On 26 April 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of her case by an Administrative Separation Board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions and submitted a statement on her behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 17 May 2011, 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.
       
       The record contains a CID Report dated 4 January 2011.

       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 all the applicant’s 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 repeated incidents of 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.  
       
       In essence, the applicant contends that she was a good Soldier who was abused by her husband and received no help from her chain of command.  The analyst acknowledges the applicant’s in-service accomplishments and considered the quality of her service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct and by the multiple negative counseling statements contained in the service record.  The analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant.  
       The evidence of record shows that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting herself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.
       
       Moreover, the analyst noted that there was more than just one incident of misconduct.  The discrediting entries constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident or by a pattern of misconduct provides the basis for a characterization.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's pattern of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This pattern of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 
       
       The applicant contends she was being abused by her husband to the point that she just couldn’t take it anymore; however, the analyst determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  She could have sought help for her problems from the numerous Army community service providers like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, Military Police, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct.  
       
       Furthermore, the record does not support the issue that the applicant suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  
       
       Additionally, the analyst noted the applicant's issue about her desire to rejoin the Service as an officer.  However, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.”  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact the local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate.  
       
       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: 23 May 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: Seven character reference letters, honorable discharge certificates, AER, certificates of training, awards, and enlisted evaluation reports.

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: NA
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 AR20110024935
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages