Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/10/06	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant, states in effect, that she was raped and abused while deployed by her non-commissioned officers.  She went for help outside her platoon but was denied and accused of lying.  Other females that went through a similar situation received justice and were given help.  She was denied her medical records when she was discharged.  She attempted suicide and was threatened if she complained.  She now suffers from MSTI, can’t live a normal life, does not qualify for Veterans benefits and has lost her job.

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: 090112
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 090304   Chapter: 14-12b    AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: E Co, 3d Bn, 2d ADA Bde, Fort Bliss, TX 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 080828, disrespectful in language to an NCO (080718), disobeyed a lawful order from an NCO (080719); reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $314, extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG)

080424, violated unit policy by having a visitor in her barracks room after hours (080420); reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $352 (suspended), 14 days of extra duty and restriction (CG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 070628    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 08 Mos, 07 Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 08 Mos, 07 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92A10/Automated Log Spc   GT: 95   EDU: GED   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  La Puente, CA
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 12 January 2009, 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 being disrespectful to a superior commissioned Officer (081204), disrespectful to an NCO (081204), two counts of disobeying an NCO (081204), disobeying an NCO (081119), 3 counts of disobeying an NCO (081119), getting into a verbal altercation with another Soldier (080923) that eventually turned into a physical altercation, failure to report to her assigned place on four occasions (080818, 080817, 080504, 080426), violation of a lawful written order (080709), disrespect of an NCO (080718),  curfew violation (080504), failure to obey a lawful written order (080420), for receiving two Company Grade Articles 15 actions during this time frame for three of the incidents of misconduct cited above; for having a long standing history of pattern of misconduct going back almost one year to April 2008.  The unit commander recommended a general under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of her rights.  
       
       On 14 January 2009, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, requested an administrative separation board (was not entitled to one) and did not submit a statement on her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army 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 10 February 2009, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge 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 all the applicant’s military records and the issues 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 repeated acts 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.  
       
       The applicant contends that she was raped and abused by her NCOs and was threatened if she said anything about it and was also denied help.  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, to support the contention that she was raped, abused, threatened or unjustly discriminated.   In fact, the applicant’s two Articles 15 and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and she has not provided any documentation or further evidence in support of her request for an upgrade of her discharge.   Moreover, 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.  
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issues about her inability to get Veterans benefits, a better job, and the GI Bill.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Additionally, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.
       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: 30 March 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: None

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 AR20110021356
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages