IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  18 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120006722 


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 award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and restoration of the rank/pay grade of specialist/E-4.

2.  She states she served 3-plus years and was never awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal.  She was also reduced from pay grade E-4 to E-3 by a company-grade Article 15 that was never closed out.  She believes she should be awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal because she deserves it.  Her Article 15 was never fully processed so she believes she should never have been reduced to pay grade E-3.  The Article 15 came after she completed 3 years of service.

3.  She provides no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-1 on 11 August 2005.  She completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic).  She was promoted to pay grade E-4 on 1 December 2007.

2.  She received developmental counseling as follows:

* 19 February 2008, for failure to attend accountability formation
* 1 April 2008, for failure to report to formation and failure to call her chain of command prior to formation
* 2 April 2008, for insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO)

3.  On 2 April 2008, a DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)) was initiated against the applicant for adverse action.

4.  She was again counseled on 7 April 2008 for failure to report to formation.

5.  A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 10 April 2008, shows the applicant's behavior was normal.  She was fully alert and fully oriented.  Her mood was unremarkable, her thinking process was clear, her thought content was normal, and her memory was good.  The examining medical doctor, a psychiatrist, stated:

	a.  The applicant was seen at the Martin Army Community Hospital Outpatient Mental Health Service on 10 April 2008 for a command-referred evaluation.  Based on that evaluation, she was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder.  The applicant did not present as suicidal or homicidal at that time.  No mental health problems were seen which required disposition through medical channels at that time.

	b.  The applicant was determined to be mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right.  She had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative or legal proceedings.  She was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.

6.  She was counseled again on 6 June 2008 for failure to report to accountability formation.

7.  On 20 June 2008, she accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failing to go to her appointed place of duty on 1 and 7 April 2008 and being disrespectful in language toward an NCO on 2 April 2008.  Her punishment consisted of reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $393.00 pay per month for 1 month (suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 18 September 2008), and 14 days of extra duty.

8.  She appealed her punishment, but her appeal was denied on 30 June 2008 and she was reduced to pay grade E-3.

9.  She was further counseled on 23 July 2008 for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-17; her flagging action; and the requirements for a medical examination and mental status evaluation.

10.  On 18 August 2008, the applicant's commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, paragraph 5-17 (Other Designated Physical or Mental Conditions).

11.  On 21 August 2008 after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged she understood the basis for the contemplated separation action for other designated physical or mental conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, the rights available to her and its effects.  She waived her rights and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

12.  On 29 August 2008, the applicant's commander recommended her separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, for other designated physical or mental conditions.

13.  On 24 September 2008, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's separation action and directed issuance of an honorable discharge.

14.  In a memorandum, dated 3 April 2009, the Acting Brigade Commander, Headquarters, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, Fort Benning, GA, recommended her separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, and not separation through medical channels.  The brigade commander stated the applicant's "chapter" was approved on 24 September 2008 prior to initiation of the medical evaluation board (MEB) process between on or about 10 and 23 October 2008.  He recommended the applicant's release based on the approved "chapter."  The applicant's diagnosis was noncombat related and she had not been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.  The applicant indicated that she intended to seek disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

15.  On 23 April 2009, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's discharge for other designated physical or mental conditions with an honorable character of service and stated the applicant would not be processed through the MEB/physical disability processing system.

16.  Accordingly, she was honorably discharged in pay grade E-3 on 11 May 2009 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17.  She was credited with completion of 3 years, 9 months, and 11 days of net active service and no lost time.  Her DD Form 214 shows she was awarded or authorized the:

* National Defense Service Medal
* Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
* Korea Defense Service Medal
* Army Service Ribbon
* Overseas Service Ribbon

17.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, provides for the separation of enlisted Soldiers for other designated physical or mental conditions.  A commander may approve separation under this chapter on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability and excluding conditions appropriate for separation processing under Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), paragraph 5-11 or 5-13, that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty.  The commander will refer the Soldier for a medical examination and/or mental status evaluation.

18.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military decorations, Army Good Conduct Medal, service medals and ribbons, combat and special skill badges and tabs, unit decorations, and trophies, and similar devices awarded in recognition of accomplishments.  The Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency, and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service.  This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Army Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and its addition to her DD Form 214.  The evidence of record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 August 2005.  Beginning in February 2008, she was counseled on failing to report to formation on two occasions and being disrespectful toward an NCO.  She also accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for this same misconduct in June 2008.  Her punishment included a reduction from pay grade E-4 to E-3.  Her appeal of the punishment was denied and she was reduced accordingly.

2.  Therefore, the evidence of record shows there was turbulence in her service which caused her to be reduced from E-4 to E-3 during what would have been the period for award of the Good Conduct Medal.  This turbulence indicates a lack of good conduct, efficiency, and/or fidelity.  The applicant is therefore not entitled to award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) or to have it added to her DD Form 214.

3.  The evidence of record also shows her appeal of the Article 15 was denied and she was reduced accordingly.  There is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief of restoring her to pay grade E-4.  There is no evidence of record and she provided none to show the punishment and reduction to pay grade E-4 were unjust, in whole or in part, to support her request.

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 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)                                         AR20120006722



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120006722



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1