IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 
      
      BOARD DATE:  	17 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130001488
___________________________________________________________________________

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 that her narrative reason for separation be changed from substandard performance to early release and her separation code (SPD) changed from JHK to JDM. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she completed part of her training and first certification; however, her training could not proceed due to her unit’s deployment with the required training equipment.  Arrangements were not made within the rear detachment for her training.  She was the only one who was left behind.  Her military experience traumatized her and she is just now at a point that she is able to deal with the injustice. 
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		10 January 2013		
b. Discharge Received:		Honorable
c. Date of Discharge:			30 September 2001	
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Substandard Performance, AR 600-8-24,          								Chapter 4-2A, JHK, NA	
e. Unit of assignment:			HHB, 5-7 ADA, APO AE			
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	15 January 1999, Indefinite
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 8 months, 16 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 8 months, 16 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		O-1
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	14E00, Patriot Missile Air Defense Artillery Officer
m. GT Score:				NA
n. Education:				College Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Germany
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		Yes
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant was appointed a Reserve Commissioned Officer in the Regular Army on           18 December 1998, for an indefinite term.  She entered active duty on 15 January 1999.  She was 24 years old at the time of entry and a college graduate.  She served in Germany, and completed 2 years, 8 months, and 16 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on 9 April 2001, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2(a) (1,3,5,& 6), AR 600-8-24, because of substandard performance of duty.  

2.  The applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the Army due to a downward trend in overall performance resulting in an unacceptable record of efficiency.  Specifically for the following:

* receiving a referred OER for the periods of 00/06/11-00/10/09 and 99/06/11-00/06/10;

* failing to exercise necessary leadership or command expected of an officer of her grade;

* her performance as evidenced in counseling’s and statements dated 15 October 1999, 13 September 1999, 15 June 2000, 21 June 2000, 3 July 2000, 5 July 2000, 7 July 2000, 11 July 2000, 14 July 2000, 17 July 2000, 1 August 2000, 2 August 2000, and   26 September 2000;

* failing to absorb technical proficiency required for her grade and competitive category, by failing to achieve Air Defense Gunnery Table IV/VIII qualification (180 day standard) after being afforded in excess of 450 days to meet the requirement;

* failing to properly perform assignments commensurate with an officer’s grade and experience; 	specifically for:
	(1) she was unable to alert launcher platoon on 30 May 2000, causing the entire platoon to show up late for a battery urinalysis and miss the one-hour alert timeline, as evidenced by the counseling statement dated 15 June 2000;
	(2) she missed a battery convoy briefing in which she was to be the serial commander for the second serial, as evidenced in the company commander’s memorandum for record dated 11 July 2000;
	(3) she disobeyed a direct order from her platoon leader to assist her Soldiers in taking down the camouflage around a tent, as evidenced by the Letter of Reprimand dated 17 July 2000;
	(4) she was absent from her place of duty on 1 August 2000 when she failed to show up for the Range Density class that she was scheduled to teach, as evidenced by the counseling she received on 1 August 2000, from her company commander,



* Apathy, and a defective attitude, to include inability or unwillingness to expend effort; specifically for:
	(1) she was counseled for failing to report to the commander for an entire day while she was at the Darmstadt Special Olympics as evidenced in the counseling statement dated 15 June 2000,
	(2) she was counseled for displaying an attitude of disrespect incommensurate with an officer in the United States Army as evidenced in a counseling memorandum dated 5 July 2000,
	(3) she was counseled for dereliction of duty for sleeping in her car during the duty day and away from her place of duty as evidenced by the counseling form (DA From 4856) dated 14 July 2000.

She was advised that as a probationary officer she could submit a voluntary resignation in lieu of elimination, and all written comments or a rebuttal would be considered.  

3.  On 29 May 2001, the Commanding General, Headquarters, V Corps, recommended        the applicant’s elimination from the US Army for substandard performance of duty IAW         AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a.  

4.  On 9 July 2001, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Commanding General, Headquarters, V Corps, and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of honorable.   

5.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 30 September 2001, with a characterization of service of honorable.

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.  Seventeen negative counseling statements dated between 15 September 1999 and                       1 March 2001, which include her third failure of the written IVC for TCO qualification,            professional conduct, guidance, promotion, attitude of disrespect, difficulty in certification        as a TCO, restriction, dereliction of duty, failure to obey an order or regulation, being       absent from her place of duty, initial guidance and performance, performance issues,           missing a battery convoy briefing, and elimination action.
      
2.  A Letter of Reprimand dated 17 July 2000, for disobeying a direct order.

3.  An Equal Opportunity Complaint Form dated 13 December 2000, complaint concerning gender and racial discrimination.

4.  Three OERs, the last one covers the period of 10 October 2000 to 1 May 2001.  The applicant was rated as unsatisfactory performance/do not promote by her rater, and her senior 
rater selected do not promote, and indicated her potential compared with others rated in the same grade as below center of mass, do not retain.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

 The applicant provided a DD Form 149, and a DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were provided by the applicant.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1. Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers.  Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security.

2.  AR 600-8-24, paragraph 1-22a, provides that an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.

3.  A general under honorable conditions characterization of service will normally be issued to an officer when the officer’s military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A separation under honorable conditions will normally be appropriate when an officer submits an unqualified resignation or a request for relief from active duty under circumstances involving misconduct which renders the officer unsuitable for further service, unless an under other than honorable conditions separation is appropriate.

4.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable.  An officer will normally receive an under other than honorable conditions when they resign for the good of the service, are dropped from the rolls of the Army, are involuntarily separated due to misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or for the final revocation of a security clearance as a result of an act or acts of misconduct.

5.  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 "JHK" as the appropriate code to assign officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2a, Substandard Performance.

6.  The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JHK" will be assigned an RE Code of NA.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

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

2.  The record confirms 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 Army officers.  

3.  The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that her service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance.  Further, the applicant’s record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  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 contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed.  However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2a, AR 600-8-24 with a honorable discharge.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Substandard Performance," and the separation code is "JHK."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.  

5.  The applicant contends she was traumatized by her military service.  However, the service record contains no evidence to support her claim and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any trauma.  

6.  The applicant contends she was unable to complete her training and certification due to the non-availability of appropriate training and equipment within the unit.  However, in review of the applicant’s record it appears she did not utilize all the resources available to her.  The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with her overall service record.

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

8.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and 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:  17 May 2013         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  NA  	No Change:  NA  
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:	NA
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)		AR20130001488



Page 2 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1