Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/11/13	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that she would like an upgrade of her discharge and a change to her narrative reason for discharge.  She contends she was in the Army for a total of 8 years, 11 months and      26 days.  The characterization of service is a description of the total service provided during a member’s enlistment.  A general, general under honorable conditions discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record.  Prior to the false accusations she never had any negative aspects of conduct or performance of duty.  After the false accusation her leadership and command failed her and by not helping her they only made other false accusations against her.  For the Board to have made a recommendation of separation, it was required of them by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegations of misconduct presented against her was true and that they warrant separation.  She did not have a pattern of misconduct because the accusation were false.  She contends that at the time of her discharge she was under distress due to her husband being a very controlling and abusive man.  She is no longer married to him and has gotten help for the mental and emotional stress.  She also contends when a person goes to their command and asks for help because they are being hurt at home they need to be given help even if they try to turn it down.  She asked for help and instead was discharged from the Army.

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: 970902
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 980109   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HHC, 15th MI Bn, Fort Hood, TX 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 970605, altered an official document (970507), reduction to E4 (suspended); forfeiture of $670.00 per month for two months (suspended); and extra duty for 45 days, (FG).

970715, suspension of punishment of reduction to E4 was vacated for failure to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty x 2 (970703 and 970704) and dereliction in the performance of her duties (970706).

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








Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  31
Current ENL Date: 950328    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 09  Mos, 12  Days ?????
Total Service:  		13 Yrs, 01  Mos, 08  Days Total service is base on information taken from the DD Form 214 under review, blocks 12c, d, and e.
Previous Discharges: 	RA-820805-840622/HD
                                               USARCG-840623-880321/NA
                                               RA-880322-920717/HD
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 96B10/Intelligence Analyst   GT: 117   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM, SWASM-w/2 BSS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR, KLM (SA)

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 2 September 1997, 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 altering an official document, being disrespect to a noncommissioned officer, failing to report to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time, and making a false statement, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights. 
        
       The applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested consideration of her case by an administrative separation board.  The applicant 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 action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 15 October 1997, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of her rights.  On 21 November 1997, the administrative separation board convened.  The applicant appeared with counsel.  The board recommended the applicant be discharged with issuance of a character of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       
       The separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board 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 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 being absent 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 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 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 narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives.  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is "JKA."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.
       
       The analyst acknowledges the applicant’s in-service accomplishments and considered the quality of her service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the incidents of misconduct and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.
       
       The applicant contends she was discharged as a result of false accusations made by her leadership against her.  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 she was unjustly discharged.  In fact, the applicant’s incidents of misconduct justified her discharge from the Army.  
       
       
       
       
       
       
       The applicant also contends that at the time of her discharge she was under distress due to her husband being a very controlling and abusive man.  The record of evidence does not demonstrate that she sought assistance through her command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct.  
       
       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 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: 1 April 2013         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: Online application, character reference letter, dated 21 September 1997, notification of MOS / Medical Board Proceedings, dated 20 February 1997, promotion point worksheet, dated August 1996, orders for driver’s badge, DA Form 4187 on lateral appointment from SPC to CPL, DA 4856 on recommendation for promotion, reassignment orders, dated 7 April 1995 and 11 April 1995, duty performance memorandum, dated 11 June 1991, letter of appreciation, dated 18 December 1989, service school academic evaluation report, dated 14 August 1988 and 7 September 1989, letters of commendation, dated 10 November 1982 (2), DD Form 214 for the period of service under review.

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 Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge to be 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: N/A
Other: N/A
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: N/A

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




ARCHIE L. DAVIS III
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




JOSEPH M. BYERS
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder












Legend:
AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record	FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	RE - Reentry
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NA - Not applicable	SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
CID - Criminal investigation Department	MP – Military Police	OMPF - Official Military Personnel File	UOTH - Under Other Than Honorable 
												Conditions 

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20120021038
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages