IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	10 July 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130000110
___________________________________________________________________________

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 was examined and evaluated by the Veterans Affairs and determined to have suffered from major depressive disorder while she was in the Army.  She has a rating of 100% from the Veterans Administration (VA).  She would like her DD Form 214 to be upgrade due to her medical history.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		26 December 2012
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			15 April  2011
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Unsatisfactory Performance, AR 635-200							Chapter 13, JHJ, RE 3
e. Unit of Assignment:			E Company, 1st Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery 						Fort Bliss, TX	
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	1 October 2009, 4 years 
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 6 months, 15 days
h. Total Service:			1 year, 6 months, 15 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist
m. GT Score:				97
n. Education:				College 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 1 October 2009 for a period of 4 years.  She was 31 years old at the time of entry and a college graduate.  The applicant’s record does not document any acts of valor or significant achievements.  



SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on 6 April 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for:

	a.  receiving a Field Grade Article 15 for violation of Article 91, disrespectful language toward a warrant officer (110223)
	b.  receiving a Company Grade Article 15 for violation of Article 86, for failing to go to appointed place of duty (110324).
	c.  being counseled for various disciplinary infractions to include: failure to report, failure to obey a lawful order, disrespect, lying, and dereliction of duty (100608-110313).
	d.  having a substandard  performance despite multiple attempts by leaders to help her correct her deficiencies.
	e.  failing rehabilitative transfer measures.  She was transferred to a new company to allow a fresh start under new leadership.

2.  The applicant’s election of rights notification memorandum is void of signatures; however, there is a memorandum dated 11 April 2011 from the unit commander stating the applicant was afforded the opportunity to see TDS.  The applicant spoke with her representative, and requested to submit additional matters, but refused to sign the documentations. 

3.  On 11 April 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

4.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 15 April 2011, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JHJ and a RE code of 3. 

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  The applicant received a Field Grade Article 15, dated 23 February 2011, for being disrespectful in language toward a CW2.  The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture $864.00 pay, 45 days of extra duty and 45 days restriction, suspended.  
2.  The suspension of punishment for 45 days restriction was vacated on 21 March 2011, for a new failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the appointed time.  

3.  The applicant received a Company Grade Article 15, dated 23 March 2011, for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the appointed time (110312).  The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $403.00 pay, suspended, and extra duty and restriction for 14 days, suspended.

4.  Several negative counseling’s dated between 8 June 2010 and 21 March 2011, for failure to report to formations, not showing up on time to her designated place of duty, disrespect to noncommissioned officers, failure to follow directions, dereliction of duty, and informing her of the possibility of an administrative separation.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

DD Form 293; DD Form 214; documents from the Department of Veterans Affairs, 28 pages

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant is receiving VA disability.  

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.

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 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.  By the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable characterization of service.  

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 the Veterans Administration has granted her a service connected disability for major depressive disorder.  However, the service record contains no evidence of major depressive disorder and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  

5.  Lastly, 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.  

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: 10 July 2013        Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel: None



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)		AR20130000110



Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1