IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	10 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130000492
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony 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, that she was unfairly discharged due to personal issues against her from the chain of command.  When she was read her chapter packet she was told she would get an honorable discharge.  When she was called back later the commander changed the discharge to general, under honorable conditions.  She contends another Soldier being discharged for the same reason received an honorable characterization.  She had several passing APFTs until she injured her knee and was placed on a profile.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		7 January 2013
b. Discharge received:			General, under honorable conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			29 March 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Physical Standards, Chapter 13-2e, JFT, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			C Co, 62d Signal Bn, Fort Hood, TX
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:  	9 February 2010, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:  	2 years, 0 months, 23 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 0 months, 23 days
i. Time Lost:				28 days
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	15P10, Aviation Ops Spc
m. GT Score:				86
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:		None
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 February 2010, for a period of four years.  She was 18 years old at the time of entry and was a high school graduate.  The applicant’s record does not document any acts of valor or significant achievements.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The applicant’s service record shows that on 9 March 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance specifically for failing two consecutive Army Physical Fitness Tests.  

2.  The unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of her rights.  

3.  On 9 March 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on her 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.  The applicant was not transferred to the US Army Reserve Control Group.

5.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 29 March 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Chapter 13, with an SPD code of JFT and a reentry code of 3.

6.  The applicant’s service record contains a period of lost time for 28 days (110613-110710).  The specific reason for the time lost is not contained in the record.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

There are no counseling statements or UCMJ actions in the record.  However, the unit commander in a memorandum to the higher headquarters described a company grade Article 15 punishment in which the applicant was reduced to the grade of E-2, received a forfeiture of pay of $403.00 (suspended), and 10 days of extra duty and restriction.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

 The applicant provided a DD Form 293, a self-authored statement, and DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None provided with the application.

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 she was unfairly discharged because she was initially told she was going to receive an honorable discharge and another Soldier being discharged for the same reason received an honorable characterization.  However, 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.  The unit commander indicated she had an Article 15 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and her record shows a period of lost time for 28 days.

5.  Further, the method in which another Soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case.  Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case.

6.  The applicant also contends that medical issues contributed to her inability to pass the APFT, specifically issues with her right knee.  However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  

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

8.  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 April 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 RE Code to:	N/A
Grade Restoration to:	N/A
Change Authority for Separation:	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	UOTH - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable
ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR 20130000492		

5



ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1