IN THE CASE OF:	

      BOARD DATE:  	2 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130005476
___________________________________________________________________________

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 to upgrade her characterization of service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she is requesting for an upgrade, because she feels some of the counseling statements are not true. 
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	18 March 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	20 January 2012
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-
			12b, JKA, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	549th MP Co, 385th MP Bn, Fort Stewart, GA
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	14 February 2008, 6 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 11 months, 7 days 
	h.	Total Service:	6 years, 5 months, 2 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None 
	j.	Previous Discharges:	RA (050819-080213) / HD
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4 
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	92A10, Automated Logistical 
	m.	GT Score:	88 
	n.	Education:	GED
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA
	p.	Combat Service:	Iraq (060325-061213), (080920-090829)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	ARCOM; AAM-2; AGCM; NDSM; ICM-3CS 
			GWOTSM; ASR; OSR-3
	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 19 August 2005, and reenlisted on 14 February 2008, for a period of 6 years.  She was 23 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED).  She served in Iraq.  She earned an ARCOM, two AAMs, and an AGCM.  She completed 6 years, 5 months, and 2 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record shows that on 2 November 2011, 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 of pattern of misconduct, specifically for:

	a.	receiving a company grade Article 15 (110127) for failing to report to her appointed place of duty on five separate occasions and disobeying an NCO
	b.	receiving a field grade Article 15 (110829) for driving under the influence of alcohol; possessing an open container of alcohol while operating a motor vehicle; and operating the vehicle without current revalidation decal on the license plate
	c.	being counseled for continued failing to report to her place of duty

2.  The unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of her rights.

3.  On 22 November 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board 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.  On 9 January 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 20 January 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for pattern of misconduct, 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, dated 27 January 2011, disobeying an NCO (100420) failure to report on 5 occasions (101203, 101019, 101015, 101014, and 100630).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $455 per month, 7 days of extra duty, (CG). 

2.  Article 15, dated 29 August 2011, DUI (110609); possessing an open alcoholic container while operating a motor vehicle (110609); operating a motor vehicle with current revalidation decal on license plate (110609).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, 45 days of extra duty, (FG). 

3.  Eighteen negative counseling statements, dated between 17 February 2010, and 6 October 2011, for pending separation for pattern of misconduct; showing up to work late and missing formations; failing to be in proper uniform; failing to have ID tags for PAI; disobeying orders, regulations, and procedures; failing to make command-directed appointments; insubordination; disrespecting NCOs; and failing APFT and failing to meet weight standards.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided none.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none. 

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 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 two impositions of Article 15 punishments for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and numerous 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 feels some of her counseling statements are in error or false.  However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she may have been unjustly discriminated.  In fact, the applicant’s two Article 15 actions and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.   

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 his overall service record.  Accordingly, the records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

6.  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:  2 October 2013      Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel:  None

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:		No Change
Change RE Code to:			No Change
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)		AR20130005476

Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1