IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	26 June 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130002140
___________________________________________________________________________

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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her discharge is improper because some of the incidents that happened were untrue.  One such incident is that she was accused of being in a fight; and breaking a German National’s nose, when in actuality the German National attacked her.  She was accused of being drunk on duty because although, she was the on-call armorer, she had attended a hail and fair-well and had already been drinking when she was ordered to go on duty after the scheduled duty armorer got sick, and had to go to the hospital.  She stopped drinking but was still ordered to duty while she was still drunk.  Also, her first sergeant had it in for her because he heard she was a lesbian, and because he was very religious, and he tried to discharge her in Kuwait by accusing her of kissing another girl at a club.  She finished nursing school in 2012, and now has a balance she needs to pay.  She feels she deserves her GI Bill money.  She earned awards and medals while in the military, and participated in Soldier of the Quarter Competitions, and Soldier of the Division.  She needs the upgrade to continue her education.  She has been awarded a period of honorable service by the VA.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		28 January 2013		
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			1 April 2006	
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, 							JKA, RE-3	
e. Unit of assignment:			1st Military Police Company, 1st Infantry Division, 						Wuerzburg, Germany
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	22 April 2003, 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 11 months, 10 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 11 months, 10 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	91W10, Health Care Specialist
m. GT Score:				114
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			SWA, Germany
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (040207-050303)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR,    							OSR-2, MUC
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 22 April 2003 for a period of 3 years.  She was      19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  She served in Iraq and Germany, earned an ARCOM and completed 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 14 March 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, Section III, Paragraph 14-12b. Specifically for:

	a.  drunk on duty as on Call Armorer;
	b.  operating a vehicle without a valid license or certificate;
	c.  assaulting service member on two separate occasions;
	d.  breaking the nose of a female local national;
 	e.  defied and disobeyed lawful orders given to her by her NCOs.

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

3.  On 26 March 2006, 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 28 March 2006, the separation authority approved and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 

5.  The separation authority’s memorandum appears to be misdated, 28 March 2007; as the applicant was discharged 1 April 2006, the next logical sequential date in the discharge process would be 28 March 2006. 

6.  The applicant was separated on 1 April 2006, under Army Regulation 635-200,         Chapter 14-12b, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code              of JKA, and an RE code of 3.

7.  The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  



EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 25 March 2004, for unlawfully striking PV2 DS in the face with a closed fist on (040124). The punishment consisted of extra duty for 7 days (suspended), to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (040725).

2.  Article 15, dated 18 November 2005, for being disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer (SGT), then known by her to be a noncommissioned officer on (051001); being found drink while on duty as the on call armorer on (050930); assault, by forcefully pushing SPC M on (051001); for wrongfully operating a POV without a valid certificate or license on (051027).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $350 pay per month for two months (suspended), to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (060118), 45 days of extra duty, (FG). 

3.  Four negative counseling statements dated between 1 October 2005 and 15 February 2006, for being found drunk of duty, assault, driving on the economy without a license, drinking while being admitted to ASAP, violating ASAP treatment, initiation of separation action. Two performance counseling statements dated between 4 October 2005 and 4 November 2005.
      
4.  An MP Report dated 26 October 2005, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for operating a POV without being licensed or after the license had expired.

5.  An MP Report dated 28 October 2005, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongfully appropriating property (vehicle keys, and a vehicle). 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

 The applicant provided a DD Form 293, VA determination letter, Nursing Diploma, Army Commendation Medal Certificate, DD Form 638, Meritorious Unit Commendation, Family Advocacy Certificate of Completion, ASAP Certificate, Annual Combat Medics Skills-Validation Training Certificate of Training, Three Sworn Statements, Orders 087-003, Pre-separation Counseling Checklist, ERB, and a DD Form 214.  

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states she has completed nursing school.  

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 of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by 3 Articles 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and several 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 she was accused of several things that were untrue and her first sergeant had it “in” for her because he was religious.  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.  

5.  The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow 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.

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

7.  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:  26 June 2013        Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

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)		AR20130002140



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1