Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/02/03	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, her discharge was inequitable because it was based on a previous actions she had already received punishment.  Most of the incidents were later dismissed because of the Soldiers involved were reprimanded and kicked out due to others coming forward through the Inspector General.  

She is a successful college student with an expected graduation on 12 December 2012, and expects to receive a decent job.  She is also a disabled Veteran who suffers from PTSD, severe migranes and plantar fasciitis.  She receives disability from the VA and is an active member of her church and community.  She will graduate from Iowa University and she serves as a representative of the American Legion. 

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: 100622
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 110128   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: C Company, 6th Battalion, 353d Infantry Regiment, 162d Infantry Brigade, Fort Polk, LA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment):  (100106); was disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer (091214), reduction to E-2 (suspended), forfeiture of $378.00 and extra duty for 14 days. (CG)

100316, suspension of punishment for reduction to E-2 was vacated for assaulting a military policeman by pushing him aside with an open hand (100313).

100330, disrespectful in language toward a commissioned officer (100316), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $723.00 x 2 (suspended), and extra duty for 45 days. (FG)

100514, suspension of punishment for $723.00 x 2 was vacated for being disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer (100428).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 070523    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 08 Mos, 06 Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 08 Mos, 06 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 68J10 Medical Logistics Specialist   GT: 92   EDU: 13 years   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR


V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: Attending college and a member of the American Legion.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows on 22 June 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of commission of a commission of a serious offense for receiving a Company Grade Article for 15 being disrespectful in language toward a superior noncommissioned officer (100106); receiving a vacation of suspension for assaulting a military policeman (100316); receiving a Field Grade Article 15 for being disrespectful toward her superior commissioned officer (100330); and receiving a vacation of suspension for being disrespectful toward a noncommissioned officer (100514), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  
       
       On 28 June 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit 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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
             On 2 August 2010, the separation authority recommended the applicant be separated from the United States Army prior to the expiration of her current term of service, under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with a characterization of service as General, under Honorable Conditions.  The separation authority suspended execution of this approved separation for a period not to exceed 180 days.

       On 16 November 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to vacate the suspended execution of her approved separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, Section III, Paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense.  The reason for his proposed action was due to the applicant being stopped by Military Police and receiving a traffic ticket for violating Fort Polk Command Policy DES-03, use of Mobile Personal Electronic Device.  On 22 November 2010, the unit commander requested that the approved but suspended administrative separation pertaining to the applicant, which was suspended on 2 August 2010, be vacated.
       
       On 10 December 2010, the separation authority disapproved the request for vacation of the suspension of the approved separation action pertaining to the applicant which was suspended on 2 August 2010.  He directed that the applicant be allowed to continue to serve her remaining time under the suspended action.
       
       On 18 January 2011, the applicant was notified by her company commander of his intention to vacate the suspension of her administrative separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, due to the applicant presenting four checks at the Post Exchange, which totaled $1100, and did not have sufficient funds to cover the checks.which she acknowledged on the same date (101004 and 101022).  
       
       On 20 January 2011, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant indicated that she would submit statements on her own behalf within three duty days.  The applicant failed to submit matters within the three-day period, the packet was returned to the Brigade Legal Office.
       
       On 24 January 2011, the applicant's chain of command requested that the approved but suspended administrative separation, which was suspended on 2 August 2010, be vacated.
       
       On 25 January 2011, the separation authority vacated the suspension and 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 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 discharge was inequitable because it was based on a previous action she had already received punishment.  Most of the incidents were later dismissed because of the Soldiers involved were reprimanded and kicked out due to others coming forward through the Inspector General.  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 his issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence or documentation to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged.  In fact, the applicant’s two Articles 15s under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 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.  The command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting herself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.  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 noted the the applicant's contention that she was diagnosed with PTSD by the  Veterans Administration; however, the record shows that on 1 June 2010, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation which indicates that she was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong.  The applicant does not provide any evidence that she was diagnosed with PTSD. 
       
       The applicant expresses that she is a successful college student with an expected graduation date of             12 December 2012, she is an active member of her church, community, and the American Legion.  The analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many accomplishments outlined with the application and in the documents with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  
       
       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: 23 May 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 and 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 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: 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 AR20120002846
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages