IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	3 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130000103
___________________________________________________________________________

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 her characterization of service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that an upgrade would allow her the educational benefits.  She was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, but her command failed to recognize it as an issue that led her to failing to repair and having her sister in her barracks room.  The medical diagnosis should have been used to discharge her so that she could have all her VA benefits.  In addition, to be identified as having a condition and not a disability is an injustice to her.  She was being treated with medication for her condition, which caused her to oversleep, as a result she was written up for failure to repair.  When she lived off-post, her sister lived with her.  Upon being ordered back into the barracks, her sister had no place to live.  She did not want her sister to become homeless, which was the basis for her lying.  She accepts her punishment for lying; however, she does not believe that she should have been discharged with a general, under honorable conditions.  She contends that a medical discharge would be more appropriated for her medical condition.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	26 December 2012
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	11 April 2011
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Condition, Not a Disability / AR 635-200, Paragraph 
			5-17 / JFV / RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	Forward Support Company, 1st Battalion, 14th Field 
			Artillery, Fort Sill, OK
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	18 November 2009 / 3 years, 22 weeks
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 2 months, 24 days
	h.	Total Service:	2 years, 2 months, 24 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-3
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	88M, (Motor Transport Op)
	m.	GT Score:	119
	n.	Education:	14 years
	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 18 November 2009 for a period of 3 years and 22 weeks.  She was 21 years old at the time of entry and her records indicate she obtained an associate’s degree.  There is no record of any overseas assignment, or having received any valor or achievement award.  She completed 2 years, 2 months, and 24 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on 18 February 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, AR 635-200, by reason of physical condition, not a disability for being diagnosed by competent medical authority with Schizoaffective disorder and moderate Occupational and Primary Support System Stress.

2.  The commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and notified the applicant of the reasons why that characterization was appropriate; to wit, imposition of a company grade Article 15 for failure to report on diverse occasions; violating barracks policy, by having a visitor in her room during prohibited hours; and making a false official statement when she told SSG H that she had no visitors in her room.  The applicant was advised of her rights.

3.  On 22 February 2011, the applicant waived consulting with legal counsel and indicated she understood the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Service.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 4 April 2011, the separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

5.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 11 April 2011, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

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.  Article 15, dated 10 November 2010, failure to report on divers occasions (100927-101018).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $378 (suspended), 14 days of extra duty and restriction (CG) 

2.  Two negative counseling statements dated 27 September 2010 and 9 December 2010, for violating barracks visitation policy and failing to report.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a memorandum, dated 13 May 2010, subject: Personality Disorder Discharge Policy, CG Policy Memo 10-04; and the unit and battalion commanders’ recommendation.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none.  

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-17 specifically provides that a Soldier may be separated for other physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty and requires that the diagnosis be so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired.  

2.  AR 635-200, paragraph 5-1, states that a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, under honorable conditions, or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status.  

3.  A general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally inappropriate for individuals separated under the provisions of Chapter 5-17 unless properly notified of the specific factors in the service that warrant such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge was carefully considered.  However, after a careful review of all the available records for the period of enlistment under review, and the issue and documents she submitted, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  A mental status evaluation by competent medical authority diagnosed the applicant with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation under provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, by reason of other designated physical or mental condition not amounting to a disability, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge and informed the applicant as to the specific factors in the service record that would warrant such discharge.  

3.  The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because her unit did not recognize that the medication for her medical condition led to her misconduct and that she should have been medically discharged.  However, 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 may have been unjustly discriminated.  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.  Furthermore, the available medical evidence in the record indicates that the applicant was diagnosed with a medical or mental condition that required processing under the separation authority and reason for separation cited on her DD Form 214.  Accordingly, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, AR 635-200 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Condition, Not a Disability," and the separation code is "JFV."  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 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.  

4.  The applicant has expressed her desire for VA benefits, specifically, the benefits of the GI Bill.  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.

5.  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.  Accordingly, the record confirms that all the requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

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













SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: 	Records Review	      Date:  3 May 2013         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  N/A 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  N/A 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  1	No Change:  4
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)		AR20130000103



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1