IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  1 October 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019235 


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 reconsideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision in Docket Number AR20130000791 on 26 September 2013.  Specifically, she requests reinstatement in the U.S. Army or U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) and reinstatement of her rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6.          

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that:

* she followed the advice and instructions of her superior noncommissioned officers (NCOs)
* during the board process, there were additional witnesses who concurred with her testimony
* she submitted a copy of her signed lease agreement, which was witnessed by one of her senior NCOs
* the signed and witnessed lease agreement is proof she was acting in accordance with the information she was given
* she did not submit false documents to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
* one of her senior NCOs who provided her the information was directly responsible for setting up direct and automatic pay with DFAS
* she never received counseling for "lapsing duty performance" and all her NCOERs are successful and she continually performed to standards



3.  The applicant provides:

* a three-page personal letter to the Board that cites enclosures; however, these enclosures were not present
* two ABCMR letters, each dated 1 October 2013
* ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), dated 26 September 2013

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20130000791 on 26 September 2013.    

2.  The applicant provides a new argument that was not considered during the initial review of her request.  Therefore, this new argument warrants consideration by this Board.

3.  After completing prior Regular Army enlisted service in 1985, the applicant enlisted in the USAR on 21 December 2001.  She completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 42A (Human Resource Specialist).

4.  Records indicate the applicant was issued a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) on 29 February 2012, for filing fraudulent charges on travel vouchers.  The complete facts and circumstances pertaining to her GOMOR are not available for review in this case.  

5.  An administrative separation board convened on 12 July 2012 to determine her suitability for retention and further service.  The board found:

* on or about 9 January 2008, the applicant signed and submitted a false lease agreement
* she submitted false leasing documents totaling $18,102.50 to DFAS, for payment on a property she owned but presented as a rental property in Tampa, FL, as follows:

Date (on or about)
Document(s)
Dollar Amount
9 January 2008
false voucher and rental receipt
$4,500.00
10 February 2008
false voucher and rental receipt
$2,250.00
10 March 2008
false voucher and rental receipt
$2,250.00
24 April 2008
false voucher and rental receipt
$2,250.00
5 May 2008
false rental receipt
$2,250.00
5 May 2008
false voucher 
$2,255.00
3 June 2008
false voucher and rental receipt
$2,255.00
10 July 2008
false voucher 
$2,362.50
11 July 2008
false rental receipt
$2,250.00
5 August 2008
false rental receipt
$2,250.00
8 August 2008
false voucher 
$2,255.00
6.  The administrative separation board recommended her separation due to a pattern of misconduct and the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

7.  On 19 July 2012, she provided written statements and requested clemency for her retention in the military.  She stated:

* the results were unfair and the recommended characterization of her separation was too harsh
* she admitted she exercised a lack of judgment and her choice of action was wrong
* she was a newly-promoted SSG/E-6 who sought assistance from her superiors
* there was total uncertainty and much confusion as it related to appendix O of the Joint Federal Travel Regulation, which allows the Soldier to claim mortgage interest
* while assigned to AR-MEDCOM, she excelled in her duties and responsibilities and her NCOER's during that tenure were superior
* she never received support from her command throughout the 4-year ordeal and continued to ask the command to resolve the matter
* training and other opportunities were denied due to being flagged
* she never became bitter, disgruntled, or lacked esprit de corps as a Soldier
* she filed a Congressional inquiry in November 2010 and sought assistance from the IG in July 2011
* she loved the military and is a member of veterans organizations
* she had maintained an excellent employment record with the Federal government
* much time had passed – her past behavior had never happened before and would never happen again
* the unfortunate incident did not prevent her from gaining Federal employment and Federal Acquisition Certification to be a Contracting Officer Technical Representative

8.  Orders 12-236-00031, issued by Headquarters, 81st Regional Support Command, Fort Jackson, South Carolina on 23 August 2012, show the applicant was reduced in rank/grade from SSG/E-6 to private/E-1, effective 23 August 2012.

9.  The separation authority approved her separation and she was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 28 August 2012.

10.  The applicant provides a 3-page statement to the Board, wherein she contends:

   a.  She did not submit false documents totaling $18,102.50 to DFAS for payment; she relied on one of her senior NCOs who provided her the information and who was directly responsible for setting up the direct and automatic payments in DFAS so she was paid each pay day.  She did not have access to DFAS to set up these recurring payments nor was she fully aware that this was not done to standard.

   b.  A copy of her signed lease agreement, which was witnessed by one of her senior NCOs, is proof she was acting in accordance with the information that she was given.  (This document is not available for review.)    

   c.  Her senior rater, MSG M.W., from her NCO Evaluation Report (NCOER) in 2008 [presumed to be for the period 1 June 2008 thru 1 September 2008], refused to evaluate her again for her NCOER for the period 1 October 2008 through 30 September 2009.  This NCOER states she was unavailable for signature and the rating command for this NCOER was not the same as the one prior.  Both reports show her and all rating officials were assigned to the AR-MEDCOM in Pinellas Park, FL.

   d.  She was never counseled for "lapsing duty performance" and in fact, all of her NCOERs were successful or superior.  She further states that while she was flagged and without any support from her command, she continued to maintain high standards.  She continues to support the military in a variety of ways and has an excellent record as a federal government employee.  

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of Army enlisted personnel.  It states that when the separation authority determines that a Soldier is to be discharged from the service under other than honorable conditions, the Soldier will be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.

12.  Army Regulation 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve – Enlisted Administrative Separations) prescribes policies, standards, and procedures governing the administrative separation of certain enlisted Soldiers of the Army National Guard and USAR.

	a.  When a Soldier is to be discharged with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions, the separation authority will direct immediate reduction to private/E-1 in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-19, chapter 10.

	b.  Service may be characterized as under other than honorable conditions only when discharge is for misconduct, fraudulent entry, unsatisfactory participation, or security reasons  Such discharges must be supported by approved board findings and an approved board recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for reconsideration of her previous case, in which she requests reinstatement in the U.S. Army or U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) and reinstatement of her rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6, was carefully considered. 

2.  The applicant contends she did not submit false documents to DFAS for payment totaling $18,102.50.  However, an administrative separation board determined she signed and submitted a false lease agreement and false documents to DFAS for payment and recommended she be separated.  The previous Board determined she was properly and equitably discharged and there was no basis for granting her request at that time.

3.  She contends that a copy of her signed lease agreement, witnessed by a senior NCO, is proof she was acting in accordance with the information that she was given.  However, this document and others listed as enclosures were not present and could not be reviewed.   

4.  She contends she was only following the guidance of her senior NCOs.  However, the available evidence does not support a conclusion that she was not responsible for her own actions.  There is no basis for reversing the  administrative separation board’s decision or the previous Board's decision.  

5.  She also contends her NCOER for the period 1 October 2008 through
30 September 2009, which she was unavailable to sign, is in question.  However, she provides no substantive proof that her rating scheme was not accurate or the NCOER is invalid.  Therefore, her contention is without merit.  

6.  She further contends that she never received any counseling for "lapsing duty performance" and in fact all of her NCOERs were successful or better.  While no evidence of counseling is available for review her NCOERs all state her duty performance was successful or better.  However, she provides no evidence of any inconsistency or lack of support from her chain of command.  

7.  While it is clear that she disagrees with the ABCMR's earlier decision, she has not provided a convincing argument or adequate evidence to support a different decision.  In view of the above, there is an insufficient basis for granting the requested relief.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20130000791, dated 26 September 2013.  



      _______ _   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)                                         AR20130000791



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019235



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1