IN THE CASE OF:   Ms 

      BOARD DATE:  	7 June 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120022602
___________________________________________________________________________

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 general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she is requesting an upgrade of her discharge in order to return to the military.  She was a single parent of a child who was constantly sick and her chain of command did not provide her with any help.  She feels her discharge was inequitable because she was told she was not going to be discharged.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		14 December 2012
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions	
c. Date of Discharge:			29 May 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			249th Quartermaster Company, Fort Bragg, NC
f. Date/Term:				19 October 2010, 4 years 	
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 7 months, 11 days
h. Total Service:			1 year, 7 months, 11 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None	
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	92A10, Automated Logistics Specialist
m. GT Score:				94
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, GWOTSM, 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 19 October 2010, for a period of four years.  She was 17 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  Her record does not contain any meritorious achievements or awards.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The record shows that on 3 May 2012, 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 the following offenses:

      a. Failed to report to her designated place of duty on 6 occasions between 17 October 	2011 and 29 March 2012
      
      b. Dereliction in the performance of her duties between 18 October 2012 and               	21 October 2012 and again on 22 March 2012.
      
2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 8 May 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and indicated she would submit a statement on her own behalf (NIF).  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.  

4.  On 9 May 2012, 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 29 May 2012, for a pattern of misconduct, under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, with an SPD code of JKA and an RE code of 3.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  The unit commander’s memorandum describes a Company Grade Article 15, issued on       5 January 2012, for failure to report on 4 occasions and being derelict in the performance of her duties 3 times.  Her punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $388.00 (initially suspended and later vacated), and 14 days of extra duty.

2.  The unit commander’s memorandum also details 6 instances of counseling for offenses related to tardiness, and dereliction of duty.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

The applicant provided no supporting documents with her application.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None provided by the applicant.


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 her discharge characterization was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review 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 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 an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15 and several negative counseling statements for multiple 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 that she was unjustly discharged because she was a single parent of a child who was constantly sick, never received any help from her chain of command and was told she would not be discharged.  However, the applicant’s record does not contain any indication that she was told she would not be discharged from the Army.  In fact, she acknowledged receipt of the separation action on 3 May 2012.  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 this issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she was unjustly discharged because she was a single parent.  In fact, the applicant’s Article 15 and negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.   Moreover, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with her overall service record.  

5.  The applicant desires to return to the military.  However, she was appropriately assigned a reentry code of 3.  An 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 her 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. 

6.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

7.  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:  7 June 2013	Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA

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:	NA
Change RE Code to:		NA
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	UOTH - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions
ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR 20120022602		

Page 6 of 6 pages



ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1