Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/03/15	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that she was diagnosed with tuberculosis in February 2003 and since the unit was deploying she couldn’t get treatment until the unit returned to Fort Riley.  This was totally unacceptable to her.  Later on she suffered a knee injury and was hospitalized.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement explaining her account of the events that led to her discharge.  She talks about being at a party and having her drink spiced with cocaine and received a FG Article 15 as a result of it.  Her unit denied her request for leave and she is requesting an upgrade of her discharge to honorable and a change to her reentry code.

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: 031114
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040115   Chapter: 14-12b    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: 568th EN Co, Fort Riley, KS 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030904, wrongfully used cocaine (030715-030718), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $575 for 2 months (suspended), 45 days of extra duty an oral reprimand (FG)

030630, failed to report four times (between 030619-030622), 14 days of extra duty an oral reprimand (Summarized)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  26
Current ENL Date: 020402    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 09 Mos, 14 Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 09 Mos, 14 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92G10/Food Svc Spc   GT: 104   EDU: 2 years of College   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed with the application

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 14 November 2003, 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 disobeying lawful orders from NCOs, failing to report to her designated place of duty on numerous occasions, and for testing positive for cocaine, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  
       
       On 20 November 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, submitted a conditional waiver (although not entitled), and did not submit a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiving further rehabilitation. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed elimination action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 19 December 2003, 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 all the applicant’s military records, the documents 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 her repeated incidents 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 she is entitled to an upgrade of her discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to her misconduct.  Specifically, she claims medical issues resulted in her discharge.  The analyst noted the applicant’s issue about her medical condition as outlined in the documents with her application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.
       
       Further, 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.  Moreover, the evidence of record shows that 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.
       
       Additionally, 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 the issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that she was unjustly discharged.   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 the discharge. 
       
       Finally, the analyst noted the applicant's issue about her desire to have her reentry code changed.  However, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.”  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact the local recruiter to determine her eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate.  
       
       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: 9 July 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: Director of Veterans Affairs, Farmingdale State College, Farmingdale, NY 11735

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 214, DD Form 2697, DD Form 2808, DD Form 2807-1, progress summary and medical exam documents.

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:


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 AR20120005972
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 4 pages