IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms 

      BOARD DATE:  	29 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130000670
___________________________________________________________________________

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, her DD Form 214 that she received in 2008 reflects a fully honorable discharge and the older DD Form 214 still reflects general, under honorable conditions.  She would like to have her discharge upgraded so she may apply for the Montgomery or Post 9/11 GI Bill education benefits.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	31 December 2012
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	30 July 2002
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b, JKA, 
			RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	B Btry, 5th Bn, 52nd ADA, Fort Bliss, TX
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	5 July 2000, 3 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 26 days
	h.	Total Service:	2 years, 26 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-2
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	92Y (Unit Supply Specialist)
	m.	GT Score:	99
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	NIF
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	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 5 July 2000 for a period of 3 years.  She was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  Her record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement, or any overseas assignment.  She has completed 2 years and 26 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 12 July 2002, 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.  Specifically, for the following offenses:  

a. receiving a company grade Article 15 (020226) for violations of Article 86 (failure to repair), Article 91 (disrespecting an NCO), and Article 92 (disobeying a lawful order);
b. receiving (020525) vacation of suspended punishment of reduction to E-1 and forfeiture of $238 for violation of Article 86 (failure to repair);
c. receiving a company grade Article 15 for violations of Article 86 (failure to repair), Article 91 (disrespecting an NCO), and Article 92 x 2 (disobeying a lawful order).

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 12 July 2002, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action 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 16 July 2002, 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 30 July 2002, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3. 

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 26 February 2002, failure to report (020117), disrespectful in language toward an NCO (020117), dereliction in performance of duties (020117).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1 (suspended) and forfeiture of $238 (suspended),    14 days of extra duty, 14 days of restriction (suspended), oral reprimand (CG).

2.  Vacation of suspension, dated 25 May 2002.  The suspension of the punishment of reduction to the grade of E-1 and forfeiture $238.00 imposed on 26 February 2002, was vacated for a new offense of failing to go to her place of duty (020508). 

3.  Article 15, dated 10 June 2002, for leaving appointed place of duty without authority x 2 (020508, 020513), disobeying a lawful order from an NCO (020508), disobeying a lawful order x 2 between (020425-020428, and 020509). The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $257, 14 days of extra duty and restriction, (CG).

4.  Six negative counseling statements dated between 2 May 2002 and 31 May 2002, for failing to use the battery sick call procedures, violating brigade pass and leave policy, failing to report to appointed place of duty, disobeying orders, and being demoted. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a copy of her honorable discharge certificate, dated 8 July 2008 and discharge orders, dated 8 July 2008, from the U.S. Army Reserve.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none.

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 documents 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 pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by receiving three Article 15 punishments for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and numerous negative counseling statements.

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 the Orders and DD Form 256A she received when she was discharged from the US Army Reserve on 8 July 2008 reflect she was discharged honorably.  Therefore, she would like an upgrade of the DD Form 214 reflecting her service under current review to allow her educational benefits through the use 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.  Moreover, although she received an honorable discharge certificate in July 2008 for her service with the U.S. Army Reserve, that service does not apply to the service that is currently under review.

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 during the period that is currently under review.  Accordingly, the records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

6.  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:  29 May 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	UOTHC - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions


ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20130000670



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1