IN THE CASE OF:  

      BOARD DATE:  	5 June 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130000990
___________________________________________________________________________

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 fully honorable and to change the narrative reason for her discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she believes her discharge was unjustified, if not unethical.  She has reason to believe that her discharge was due to her filing a sexual assault report and it backfired.  She was not a troublemaker. However, she would not stand for mistreatment by her fellow unit members.  She has documents proving there is indeed an issue of corruption in her former chain of command.  The time she spent under that command, she was met with nothing less than sexism, harassment, lies, and unfair treatment.  Her pregnancy was complicated and was subjected to public humiliation by her first sergeant.  She was told not to follow doctor’s orders that could save her unborn son’s life and her life.  She still loves the Army.  She did everything she could to advance.  She studied foreign languages, scored high on the ASVAB, did extra PT, did not argue, and even applied for higher security clearance.  At one point, she had volunteered for deployment.  When she appealed to her brigade commander, she was met with hostility and was told that no matter what she said, it was not relevant and that she was getting kicked out.  She applied for Chapter 8 discharge multiple times due to not having a family care plan, but her papers seemed to conveniently disappear.  Her service was unjustly brought to an end.  She hopes her request will properly reflect her time in service as she was not given the proper chance to prove herself as a Soldier.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	4 January 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	6 June 2012
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200
			Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	32nd Trans Co, 68th CSSB, Fort Carson, CO 
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	26 July 2010, 3 years, 19 weeks
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 10 months, 11 days
	h.	Total Service:	1 year, 10 months, 11 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-3
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	88M (Motor Transportation Op)
	m.	GT Score:	NIF
	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 26 July 2010 for a period of 3 years and 19 weeks.  She was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  Her record contains no evidence of acts of valor or significant achievements.  At the time her discharge proceedings were initiated she was serving at Fort Carson, CO.  She served 1 year, 6 months, and 6 days of creditable service, and was discharged for misconduct.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s digital signature.  

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates that on 6 June 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKQ and a reentry (RE) code of 3.  

3.  The applicant’s available record does not show any recorded actions under the UCMJ, unauthorized absences or time lost.  However, she was separated as a PV2/E-2 and the action that caused her reduction is not contained in the service record.

4.  On 30 May 2012, DA, Installation Management Command, HQ, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Carson, Fort Carson, CO, Orders Number 151-0015, amended by Orders Number 157-0007, dated 5 June 2012, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 6 June 2012.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

There are no counseling statements or UCMJ actions in the record.  However, the applicant was discharged as a PV2/E-2; the action that reduced her in rank is not available in her record.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided five counseling statements, dated between 8 November 2011 and 4 February 2012; two memoranda for record, dated 12 May 2012 and 1 May 2012; memorandum, dated 5 April 2011, subject: Notification of Formal Sexual Harassment Complaint; and DD Form 214 with discharge orders for service under current review.

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.

4.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (serious offense).

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge and to change the narrative reason for her discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, her military records, and the issue submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army.  However, the applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant's digital signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the presumption of government regularity prevails in the discharge process of this case.

3.  The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c by reason of misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The applicant's contention that her discharge was unjustified and has reason to believe she was discharged due to her filing a sexual assault report was carefully considered.  However, it is not possible to determine if her contentions has merit because the facts and circumstances leading to the discharge are unknown.  The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence (i.e., discharge packet) sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be her responsibility to meet this burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record.

5.  Further, 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 sufficient evidence to support the contention that she was unjustly discriminated.  The applicant’s statements alone with insufficient evidence do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity. 

6.  Therefore, based on the available evidence and the government presumption of regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief.

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: 	Records Review	    Date:  5 June 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)		AR20130000990



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1