Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/01/12	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: Record Review (110817)

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states through counsel, in effect, she is requesting an upgrade due to whether her alleged misconduct was secondary to her medical condition and whether her under other than honorable condition discharge appropriately describes her character of service.

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: 100408
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 110125   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: 280th Military Police Detachment (CID),  Fort Knox, KY                     

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 090702, violated a lawful general order, by wrongfully creating sexually explicit material and containing it on her electronic media storage device (090422), violated a lawful general regulation by wrongfully having a sexual relationship with CW3 K, (081122), reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $500.00 x 2, and extra duty for five days, and an oral reprimand, (FG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  23
Current ENL Date: 081122    Current ENL Term: 06 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 02 Mos, 03 Days ?????
Total Service:  		07 Yrs, 06 Mos, 17 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 030709 - 081121/HD
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31D10 CID Special Agent   GT: 111   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany and SWA   Combat: Iraq (080822 -090719)
Decorations/Awards: AAM,  AGCM, NDSM, ICM-w/CS, GWOTSM, NPDR, ASR, OSR, MUC

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed by the applicant

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 8 April 2010, 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 misconduct, for receiving a GOMOR for disrespecting her superiors (091223), failing to attend a mandatory formation, failing to inform her chain of command of out-of-office appointments, and failing to wear her uniform as directed, wrongfully accessing the file regarding the shootings at Fort Hood, and receiving a Field Grade article 15 for a violating a general order (090701) with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 18 May 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of additional misconduct that would considered in conjunction with her initial notice, that on diverse occasions she wrongfully distributed Klonopin, a schedule IV controlled substance to another Soldier, PVT T, without proper authority (100413). She was advised of her rights.  
       
       On 8 April 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, requested an administrative separation board 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 
       
       On 18 May 2010, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of her rights.  On 30 September 2010, the administrative separation board convened.  The applicant appeared with counsel.  The board recommended the applicant be discharged with issuance of a character of service of under other than honorable conditions.
       
       On 17 December 2010, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board, and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.
       
       The record contains a GOMOR, undated.
       
       The record contains a CID report dated, 3 May 2010.

       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, and the issue 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 the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of the former Soldier’s 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 applicant contends her alleged misconduct was secondary to her medical condition and also the under other than honorable condition discharge does not appropriately described her character of service.  However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence or documentation to support the contention that she was unjustly discharged.  In fact, the applicant’s Article 15 under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, GOMOR, and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant’s statement alone does not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  Furthermore, 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.  
       
       Furthermore, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the diagnosis of PTSD outlined in the documents with her application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  The record shows that on 17 December 2010, the separation approving authority (GCMCA) indicated in his memorandum that in the foregoing board action pertaining to the applicant, after careful consideration of her case, the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board, and the legal submissions packet warranting retention and request for a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) submitted by her counsel, the separation approving authority waived the rehabilitative transfer requirements in accordance with AR 635-200, paragraph 1-1 6d, approved the findings and recommendations of the board, and directed the applicant's discharge from the Army with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 
       
       Further, the separation approving authority reviewed the results of her medical examination, which assessed whether the effects of PTSD constituted matters in extenuation relating to the separation.  The analyst concluded that just because the applicant suffers from PTSD does not mean she doesn't know the difference between right and wrong or that she did not have control over her behavior.  There are many Soldiers with the same condition that complete their service successfully.  
       
       Additionaly, 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 or by the multiple negative counseling statements, and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.
       
       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: 21 May 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel:  yes [redacted]

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 with a self-authored statement; a copy of the ADRB decision document, dated 12 September 2011; letters of recommendation; VA Form 21-4138; portions of AR 635-200; MEDCOM Policy Memo dated, 9 June 2010, Chapter 1-33; Approved MEB; counseling statement; Policy Memorandum on PTSD; statements from PVT T and SSG R; medical admission documents; documents from LTC G and Dr.R; 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, hearing her testimony and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of her service to include his combat service and the circumstances surrounding her misconduct and as a result, it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief by changing the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  
        
IX.  Board Decision						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 4    No change 1
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 AR20120001080
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 4 pages