IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	24 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120022119
___________________________________________________________________________

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 an upgrade of her discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she made a horrible and embarrassing mistake at a younger age.  She was raped in the military and did not take the proper procedure to report it or help herself.  She suffers from depression.  She wants to go back to school to continue her education.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		30 November 2012
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			5 May 2008
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (AWOL), AR 635-200, 14-12c(1),		
      JKD, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HHC, 1st Maneuver Enhancement Brigade, 							Fort Polk, LA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	30 December 2004, 3 years, 25 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	3 year, 2 months, 8 days
h. Total Service:			3 year, 2 months, 8 days
i. Time Lost:				59 days
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	74D10, Chemical Operations Spec
m. GT Score:				98
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Korea
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, 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 30 December 2004, for a period of 3 years,             25 weeks.  She was 20 years old at the time of entry and was a high school graduate.  She was serving at Fort Polk, LA, when her discharge was initiated.  She did not have any personally earned awards in her service record and did not have any combat service.  




SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 25 April 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, specifically for the following offenses:

      a.  absenting herself from her unit (AWOL) (080115-080306) 

      b.  being disrespectful in language and deportment toward CSM T (080404)  

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.

3.  On 29 April 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and 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.  

4.  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 5 May 2008, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(1), AR 635-200, for misconduct (awol), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKD and an RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant's record shows she was AWOL for 52 days during the period 15 January 2008 through 6 March 2008.  The applicant surrendered to military authorities.  The applicant was confined by military authorities for 7 days during the period 18 April 2008 through 23 April 2008, as a result of her court-martial.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 4 April 2008, which was not executed.

2.  A Summary Court-Martial, dated 18 April 2008, for absenting herself from her unit (AWOL) (080115-080306); and being disrespectful in language and deportment toward CSM T (080404); she was sentenced to reduction to E-1 and confinement for 7 days.   

3.  A negative counseling statement dated 5 March 2008, for being AWOL.

4.  A Military Police Desk Blotter, dated 11 March 2008, indicated the applicant was a deserter and surrendered to military authorities.  


EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

 The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 23 November 2012; a self-authored statement, two (2) pages, dated 25 October 2012; Letter, State of Colorado, Department of Military and Veterans  Affairs, dated 23 November 2012; two (2) VA Forms 21-22, (Appointment of Veterans Service Organization as Claimant’s Representative), 25 October 2012 and                 9 November 2012; VA Form 21-0781a (Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder PTSD), three (3) pages, dated 27 July 2007; Applicant’s Statement, three (3) pages, undated; two (2) supporting statements, undated and 10 October 2012; and a DD Form 214, dated 5 May 2008.    

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states she worked at McDonalds and learned she could succeed through promotions.  She left McDonalds as a manager to work at a call center where she succeeded through promotions.  She is now a supervisor in charge of a team with ten people under her supervision.  She also graduated from college with an Associate’s Degree.  She is a personal trainer and her job is to coach people to health. 

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 documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge or a change to the narrative reason for separation.

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 misconduct (AWOL), the applicant diminished the quality her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by a Summary Court-Martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

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 contends she made a horrible and embarrassing mistake at a younger age.  The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 

5.  The applicant further contends that she was raped in the military and did not take the proper procedure to report it or seek help.  Although the applicant alleges that she was a victim of rape during her military service, due to the absence of corroborating evidence of the alleged rape the board could not determine if it was a factor in her going AWOL. There is no evidence in her military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention.  Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge.

6.  The applicant also contends she suffered from depression.  However, the service record contains no evidence of a diagnosis of depression and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  
   
7.  The applicant desires to use her VA benefits go back to school to continue her education.  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.
  
8.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

9.  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: 24 April 2013        Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel: NA

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:	N/A
Change RE Code to:		N/A
Grade Restoration to:		N/A
Other:					N/A
















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)		AR20120022119



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1