Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/04/28	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The Applicant states, "My discharge was part of retaliation against me for filing a sexual harassment complaint against SGT M, my platoon sgt at the time. Prior to my mother and I pushing this complaint, my mother and I were told by Capt C. that my chapter was being stopped by my agreeing to go to Iraq. We continued to push the sexual harassment complaint because nothing was being done to protect me; after Capt C. realized that my mother and I was persuing the complaint, he proceeded with the chapter. Prior to my discharge I was under the Dr for thyroid condition, a shoulder injury, and Dr S. for being so stressed out, and placed on meds, Dr S. recommended if I discharged that it be medical. After wounded soldier hotline got involved, I wasn't even allowed to properly process out, I was escorted off post, told not to return or be arrested."

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: 071220
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 071220   Chapter: 14-12C       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct - Serious Offense	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: 488 QC, 1st CSB, Ft Polk, LA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  24
Current ENL Date: 060706    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  20 weeks
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 5Mos, 15Days ?????
Total Service:  		1 Yrs, 5Mos, 15Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92G10/Food Service    GT: 90   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 20 December 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12C, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for disrespectful language towards two NCOs (071214); disrespectful language towards three NCOs (071023); disrespectful language towards an NCO X3 (071004); and disobeyed an order from a NCO (070807), with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and submitted a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  On 20 December 2007, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged 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 entire applicant’s military records, and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the former soldier’s 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 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 record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  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.  Therefore, the analyst determined that 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: 26 March 2009         Location: Dallas, TX

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: 
               Texas Veterans Commission
                VA Medical Center, Bldg 2, Room 1E-209
                Dallas, Texas 75216  

Witnesses/Observers: YES 

Exhibits Submitted: Letters from Office of the Inspector General, 14 pages and Counsel statements, 5 pages.

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 discharge was both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
X.  Board Action Directed					         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080007717
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages