IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	18 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130004788
___________________________________________________________________________

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 her discharge was the result of the stress and pressure she received from her chain of command.  She contends she experienced a lot of yelling and criticism from her command.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		7 March 2013
b. Discharge received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			11 September 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14						paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			D Trp, 1st Sqd, 6th Cav Rgt, CAB, 1st IN Div, Fort 						Riley, KS
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	9 May 2011, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 4 months, 3 days
h. Total Service:			1 year, 4 months, 3 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l.  Military Occupational Specialty:	92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist 
m. GT Score:				92
n. Education:				3 Years of College
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 9 May 2011, for a period of 4 years.  She was    30 years old at the time and had three years of college.  She was serving at Fort Riley, KS when her discharge was initiated.  The record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 11 July 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason pattern of misconduct.  Specifically for the following offenses:

a. being arrested by the Manhattan Police Department for disorderly conduct twice
b. disrespecting noncommissioned officers
c. failing to be at her appointed place of duty on divers occasions
d. assaulting another Soldier

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of her rights.

3.  On 7 August 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action.  The record indicates the applicant intended to submit a statement on her own behalf; however, the statement was not found in the available record.  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 4 September 2012, 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 was discharged from the Army on 11 September 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3. 

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.  Article 15, imposed on 10 February 2012, for failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (120122).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $389.00 pay per month for two months, extra duty for 14 days, and an oral reprimand (CG) 





2.  Article 15, dated 17 July 2003, for disobeying a lawful order from a NCO (030701), extra duty and restriction for 15 days (CG)
      
3.  Fifteen negative counseling statements dated between 18 November 2011 and 23 May 2012, for the lost of her meal card, being arrested, destruction of an accountable item, failing to be in the right uniform, failing to show up to duty, disrespecting a NCO, failing to follow instructions, assault on a Soldier, failing to keep accountability of her weapon, and notification of Chapter 14-12b.
      
4.  An MP Report and Kansas Standard Offense Report, dated 18 May 2012, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for disorderly conduct

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, report of mental status evaluation, dated 30 May 2012, unemployment compensation document, documents from her discharge packet to include developmental counseling form's, building and grounds post police call, sworn statements, military police report, and narrative report, academic history view, enlisted record brief (ERB), and a copy of his DD Form 214 for the period of service under review.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were provided with the application.

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 an 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 her discharge was the result of the stress and pressure she received from her chain of command.  While the applicant may believe stress and pressure from her chain of command was the underlying cause of her misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that she sought relief from the stress through her command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct.  

5.  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.  







6.  The Board acknowledges the Report of Mental Status Evaluation in the record indicating the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxiety & depressed mood per AHLTA.  However, medical authority determined the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and that she could appreciated the difference between right and wrong.  It appears the applicant’s chain of command determined that although she was suffering from an adjustment disorder with anxiety & depressed mood per AHLTA, she knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation.  Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully.

7.  The applicant also contends that her unemployment case was voted in her favor by the New York State Department of Labor.  However, the issue the applicant makes reference to, is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge, because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued.  

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: 18 October 2013     Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

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)		AR20130004788



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1