IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms.

      BOARD DATE:  	19 June 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130002148
___________________________________________________________________________

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 she was an excellent Soldier for the first entire year of her enlistment.  However, she became depressed and felt as if nothing mattered.  She became defiant and was not very professional.  She still suffers with depression and is on medication.  She is currently in college and would like to use the GI Bill.  She paid into the GI Bill while she was in the service; however, after talking to the VA she learned she needs an honorable discharge to utilize the benefit.  She is a good person at heart and would like to better her future.  She does not have an attorney because she does not have the financial resources.        
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:  		25 January 2013			
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			27 May 2010	
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, 							JKA, RE-3	
e. Unit of assignment:			E Company, 4th Battalion, 2d Aviation Regiment 						(Attack), 2d Combat Aviation Brigade, 2d Infantry 						Division, Camp Humphreys, Korea			
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	25 June 2008, 2 years, 23 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 11 months, 3 days
h. Total Service:			1 year, 11 months, 3 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	91D10, Power Generation Equipment Repairer
m. GT Score:				103
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Korea
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR
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 25 June 2008, for a period of 2 years and 23 weeks.  She was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  She served in Korea, and completed 1 year, 11 months, and 3 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 2 March 2010, the commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, Patterns of Misconduct. Specifically for:

	a. on divers occasions she failed to be at her appointed place of duty between            	(090803 - 100125);

	b.  on more than one occasion she failed to obey the Barracks SOP;

	c.  on divers occasions she failed to obey direct orders from noncommissioned officers, 	then known to her to be noncommissioned officers, displaying characteristics that are 	prejudicial to good order and discipline. 

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

3.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in 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 14 May 2010, the separation authority approved and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 27 May 2010, 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.               

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  An Article 15, dated 23 September 2009, willfully disobeyed a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer twice on (090912).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $366 pay per month for one month (suspended), to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (100321); 14 days of extra duty and restriction; (CG). 

2.  Twenty-three negative counseling statements dated between 21 June 2009 and 27 January 2010, failure to comply with military customs and courtesy, failure to obey a direct order by a noncommissioned officer, unsatisfactory work performance, unsatisfactory performance as a Soldier, failure to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time, failure to obey order or regulation, and malingering.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

 The applicant provided a DD Form 293, various medical documents, and a DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states she is currently attending college. 

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 numerous negative counseling statements, and an Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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 she had good service for the first year of her enlistment.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct.

5.  The applicant contends she was depressed which contributed to her misconduct; however, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct.  

6.  The applicant contends she is attending college and would like to utilize the benefits of the GI Bill; and enhance her future.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Further, 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 continue to work with a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.

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:  19 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)		AR20130002148



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1