IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	21 August 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130004767
___________________________________________________________________________

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 honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she believes her character of service and the narrative reason is unfair.  She only received two negative counseling before she was discharged.  She thinks her chain of command grew tired of her platoon due to the amount of things going on.  She was a good Soldier and was recommended for the Officer Candidate School.  Her commander recommended that she receive an honorable discharge.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		4 March 2013
b. Discharge received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			31 October 2011
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b 						JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			501st Area Support Medical Company, 86 Combat 						Support Hospital, Fort Campbell, KY 
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	8 October 2008, 4 years 		
g. Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 0 months, 23 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 0 months, 23 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l.  Military Occupational Specialty:	68W10, Health Care Specialist
m. GT Score:				121
n. Education:				College Graduate 
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (090915-100826)
q. Decorations/Awards:		AAM, NDSM, ICM-w/CS, GWOTSM, 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 8 October 2008 and enlisted for a period of 
4 years.  She was 28 years old at the time of entry and was a college graduate.  She earned an Army Achievement Medal.



SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b (pattern of misconduct). Specifically for:

a.  making a false official statement to CPT M by stating that your husband offered to assist her with completing her correspondence courses (101014).

b.  making a false official statement to 1LT P and SSG V that she did not receive any information in reference to the custody of her children (110531).

c.  being engaged in an inappropriate relationship while she was still married (between 100910-100924) and receiving a Letter of Reprimand for this misconduct.

2.  Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the unit 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 on her 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 of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  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’s record does not show any record of unauthorized absences or time lost.

6.  The applicant was separated on 31 October 2011, under Army Regulation 
635-200, Chapter 14-12b (Pattern of Misconduct), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA and an RE code of 3.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  Letter of Reprimand on 15 December 2010 for engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a civilian while she was still married (between 100910-100924).

2.  Field Grade Article 15 imposed on 15 December 2010.  The applicant was found guilty of intent to deceive her NCO and officer.  Punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $400.00 pay per month for two (2) months (suspended), extra duty for 45 days, suspended, and an oral reprimand.

3.  Company Grade Article 15 imposed on 20 September 2011.  The applicant was found guilty of making a false official statement to 1LT P and SSG V that she did not receive any information in reference to the custody of her children (110531).  Punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $383.00 pay per month for one month, suspended, and extra duty for 14 days, suspended.  

4.  Company Grade Article 15 imposed on 14 September 2011.  The applicant was found guilty of failing to report to her appointed place of duty and disobeying a Noncommissioned Officer. Punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for one (1) month, extra duty for 14 days, restriction for 14 days, and an oral reprimand.

5.  Numerous counseling statements for debt recoupment, notification of intent to chapter, a restraining order, custody of the kids, family advocacy, making a false statement, a blotter report, a bar to reenlistment, and making false official statements.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

The applicant provided a DD Form 293; a self-authored statement; a request for separation memorandum showing her previous commander requested an honorable discharge, and a DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None stated by the applicant. 

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, and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient 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 repeated incidents of serious misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a general, under honorable conditions or a fully honorable discharge.  

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 only received two negative counseling prior to being discharged.  However, the record indicates she had several incidents of misconduct in that she received a Letter of Reprimand, a Field Grade Article 15, two Company Grade Article 15s, and numerous counseling statements.  

5.  The applicant contends that she had good service which included a combat deployment.  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 or by the multiple negative counseling statements and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

6.  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 his overall service record.  

7.  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:  Record Review	  	Date:  21 August 2013	Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

Counsel: No

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 RE Code to:			No Change
Grade Restoration to:			NA
Change Authority for Separation:		No Change
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)		AR20130004767



Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1