IN THE CASE OF:  	
      
      BOARD DATE:  	3 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130000366
___________________________________________________________________________

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 sexually assaulted and a victim of domestic violence.  She was in a fragile state of mind and acted out as a result; and she was depressed and did not receive the help she needed.  She was a stellar performer until the time she got pregnant.  She desires to receive VA benefits to pursue a law degree and make a better life for her family.  She was nineteen years old when things went bad for her.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		2 January 2013 2012
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			21 July 2005
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, 14-12b
      JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			1-13th Armor Bn (Provisional), Fort Riley, KS 
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	12 June 2003, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 1 month, 10 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 1 month, 10 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	27D10, Paralegal Specialist
m. GT Score:				111
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 12 June 2003, for a period of 4 years.  She was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  She was serving at Fort Riley, KS, 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 28 June 2005, 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 a pattern of misconduct for the following offenses:

a. failing to report to her place of duty on several occasions 
b.  being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer on three occasions
c. disrespecting a commissioned officer
d. failing to obey lawful orders on two occasions
e. making a false official statement and
f. being derelict in the performance of her duties 
2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised of her rights.

3.  On 5 July 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board (was not entitled to such a board) contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions 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.  On 19 July 2005, 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’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or lost time.

6.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 21July 2005, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and a RE code of 3.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  An Article 15, dated 16 June 2005, for without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (050607); dereliction in the performance of her duties (050606); willfully disobeyed a lawful order from 1SG J (050606); and with intent to deceive, made a false official statement to MAJ W (050519); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $323 pay x 1 month, (CG).

2.  There are fifteen negative counseling statements dated between 21 March 2005 and        23 June 2005, for failing to report numerous times, discussing her job performance, failing to follow instructions, making a false official statement, disobeying orders, missing/late for formations, lying to an NCO, and disrespecting a noncommissioned officer/officer.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 28 December 2012; and a DD Form 214, dated 21 July 2005. 

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any.

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 misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality her service below that meriting an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant contends she was sexually assaulted and a victim of domestic violence during her military service.  However, 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.

4.  The applicant further contends she was in a fragile state of mind and acted out as a result; she was depressed and did not receive the help she needed.  However, she had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  

5.  The applicant also contends she was a stellar performer until the time she got pregnant. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the multiple negative counseling statements and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

6.  The applicant additionally contends she was nineteen years old when things went bad for her.  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.

7.  The applicant desires to receive VA benefits to pursue a law degree and make a better life for her family. 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.  Moreover, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

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: 3 May 2013        Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

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:		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)		AR20130000366



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1