Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/02/28	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that she is requesting an upgrade to her discharge because it was based on her gender as the only female in the company.  Her chain of command felt as though they could talk to her and deal with her in anyway shape, form or fashion.  She performed her job to the best of her ability and in some cases did more than expected in the position she was in.  Three Article 15s were initiated against her; however, she did not receive three Article 15s.  She received an Article 15 while she was with Foxtrot 3rd BN, 69th Armor Regiment for hair and nails supposedly being out of regulation.  She also received an Article 15 while she was with Foxtrot 2nd BN, 7th Infantry Regiment for disrespect to a noncommissioned officer; although, higher ranking noncommissioned officers spoke to the commander on her behalf concerning the situation.  She was told by various Army doctors and senior noncommissioned officer that because her husband was in the military she would be just fine getting discharged from the Army because she could use his benefits.

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: 100524
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 100702   Chapter: 14-12b     AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: Echo Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, 1-3 Advise and Assist Brigade, FOB Falcon, APO AE  

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): The record reflects the applicant received a Summarized Article 15; however, the Article 15 is not in the file.

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  24
Current ENL Date: 070314    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	3  Yrs, 3 Mos, 19 Days ?????
Total Service:  		4  Yrs, 8 Mos, 20 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	ARNG 051012 - 070213/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92A10 Automated Logistical Specialist   GT: 112   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq (070827 - 080330) and (091216 - 100623)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, ICM w/CS, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR

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



VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 24 May 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, pattern of misconduct, for willfully disobeying direct orders from non-commissioned officers (100507-100414); failing to report to duty (090813), (090817), (100507); failing to keep her chain of command apprised of her whereabouts on numerous occasions; having an altercation with her husband (another Soldier) at a marriage retreat held at Victory Base Complex (100519); and for previously receiving an Article 15 for prior misconduct, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  
       
       On 28 May 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived her right to an administrative separation board 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 1 June 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts 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 the applicant’s available military records, the issues 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 her 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 analyst noted the applicant’s contention that her discharge was based on her gender as the only female in the company; and her chain of command felt as though they could talk to her and deal with her in anyway shape, form or fashion.  However; 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.
       
       The analyst also noted the applicant’s contention that she performed her job to the best of her ability and in some cases did more than expected in the position she was in and that although three Article 15s were initiated against her, she only received two.  The analyst determined that before initiating action to separate the applicant, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about the deficiencies, which could lead to separation.  The analyst noted the command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory Soldier.  The evidence of record established that the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies.  As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service.
        The applicant contends she was told she could use her husband’s benefits; however, 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: 15 August 2012         Location: Washington, D. C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, sworn statement, letter of support, memorandum for record 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 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:




ARCHIE L. DAVIS III
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 AR20120004658
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 4 pages