IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	12 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120021767
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

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 was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.




      
      
      Presiding Officer
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case.

THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

1.  The applicant requests to upgrade the characterization of her service from general, under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she requests an upgrade, because she would like to serve her country by doing it the right way, and to get into the police academy.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	20 November 2012
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, under honorable conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	2 June 2010
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b
			JKA, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	673r d Medical Company (Dental Services), 56th 
			Multifunctional Medical Battalion, Fort Lewis, WA
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	25 October 2007 / 3 years, 23 weeks
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 7 months, 8 days
	h.	Total Service:	2 years, 7 months, 8 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-3
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	92Y (Unit Supply Spec)
	m.	GT Score:	85
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	Haiti
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	NDSM; HSM; ASR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	Yes
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 October 2007 for a period of 3 years and 23 weeks.  She was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  She served in Haiti.  She was awarded a Humanitarian Service Medal and completed 2 years, 7 months, and 8 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 19 January 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200.  Specifically for pattern of misconduct for the following reasons:  

a. Failing to adapt to military laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Army
b. Allowing an AWOL Soldier to reside in her barracks room on numerous occasions, in direct violation of I Corps Policy # 5
c. Failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time
d. Refusing to perform her corrective training

2.  Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 5 May 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and submitted 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.  

4.  On 12 May 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

5.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 2 June 2010, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3. 

6.  The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Company Grade Article 15, dated 19 April 2010, disrespectful in language toward an NCO (100316); disobeyed an NCO (100316-100413).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $378 per month (suspended), 14 days of extra duty and restriction. 

2.  Field Grade Article 15, dated 21 December 2009, violated a lawful general regulation (091106).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $784. 

3.  Field Grade Article 15, dated 15 October 2009, failed to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (090911), and disobeyed an NCO (090911).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2 (suspended); forfeiture of $784 (suspended); 30 days of restriction. 

4.  Four negative counseling statements dated between 22 April 2009 and 16 March, for showing up to work late, missing formations, disobeying orders, and failing to obey a lawful order/regulation/barracks policy.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided DD Form 293, dated 17 November 2012; DD Form 214 for service under current review.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none. 

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1. 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.   

2.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

3.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, her military records, the document and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The record confirms 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.  It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  By the pattern of] misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by three Article 15 punishments for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and several negative counseling statements.

3.  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.  

4.  The applicant has expressed a desire to serve her country the right way and to get into a police academy, essentially, indicating a desire to have better job opportunities, to reenlist, and the benefits of the GI Bill.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Regarding her desire to serve again, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Based on AR 635-5-1, and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned a RE code of 3.  There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code.  A RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist.  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Recruiters 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.  Further, 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.

5.  A review of the service record does not reveal any evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the applicant’s command.  It appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Accordingly, the records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

6.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief.

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: 	Records Review	  Date: 10 April 2013     Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 


Board Vote:
Character Change:  0	No Change:  5
Reason Change:	0	No Change:  5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:	 No
Change Characterization to: No Change	
Change Reason to:	No Change
Change Authority for Separation: No Change
Change RE Code to: No Change	
Grade Restoration to: NA	
Other: NA




























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	UOTHC - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions




ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20120021767



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1