IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	18 September 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130006021
___________________________________________________________________________

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, she completed her tour of duty and should have received an honorable discharge.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date 		25 March 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			20 May 1998
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-
      12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HHD, 704th Support Battalion, Fort Hood, TX
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	6 June 1997, 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	11 months, 15 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 2 months, 28 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (950223-970605)/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	92G10, Food Service Specialist
m. GT Score:				89
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		No
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 February 1995, for a period of 3 years.  She was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92G10, Food Service Specialist.  She reenlisted on 6 June 1997 for a period of 3 years and was 20 years old at the time.  Her record does not show she earned any award for acts of valor or meritorious achievements, and she achieved the rank of SPC/E-4.  She was serving at Fort Hood, TX when her discharge was initiated.



SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 22 April 1998, 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 a pattern of misconduct.  Specifically for the following offense:

     a.  failing to be at her appointed place of duty

     b.  wearing an unauthorized insignia

     c.  stealing personal property

     d.  disobeying a noncommissioned officer

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 22 April 1998, 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.  On 29 April 1998, 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 service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  

6  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 20 May 1998, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  An Article 15, dated 6 April 1998 for without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty x 2 (980310, 980312); and willfully disobeyed a lawful order from a SGT (980317); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $242 pay x 1 month, extra duty for 14 days and restriction for 14 days (suspended), (CG).

2.  An Article 15, dated 26 February 1998 for wrongfully and without authority wearing upon her uniform the insignia or grade of Specialist/E-4 of the U.S. Army (980122); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $242 pay, the forfeiture in excess of $50 pay and restriction for 14 days (suspended), and extra duty for 14 days (CG).

3.  23 March 1998, the suspension of punishment of forfeiture of $192, was vacated for the new offense of without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (980310).

4.  An Article 15, dated 9 December 1997 for stealing two lipsticks (Loreal), amounting to about $11, the property of Army and Air Force Exchange (971031); and stealing two eyeliner pencils (Wet N Wild), amounting to about $1.20, the property of AAFES (971031); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $258 pay x 1 month, extra duty for 14 days and restriction for 14 days (suspended), (CG).

5.  3 February 1998, the suspension of punishment of forfeiture of $258 pay and restriction for 14 days, was vacated for the new offense of wrongfully and without authority wearing upon her uniform the insignia or grade of Specialist/E-4 of the U.S. Army (980122).

6.  The record contains a Military Police Report dated 30 October 1997, which indicated the applicant was under investigation for shoplifting.

7.  She received four negative counseling statements which were completed between 2 March 1998 and 17 March 1998 for times of reporting for extra duty, failing to prepare on more than one occasion, and disobeying lawful orders.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any 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 her military record, and the issue 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.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by three Articles 15, two vacations of punishment, four negative counseling statements, and a Military Police Report.

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 completed her tour of duty and should have received an honorable discharge.  The evidence of record shows the applicant enlisted on 23 February 1995 for three years.  She completed 2 years, 3 months, 13 days and was allowed to reenlist.  In order to reenlist she had to receive an honorable discharge.  She reenlisted on 6 June 1997 for three years, and completed 11 months and 15 days.

5.  Further, AR 635-200, paragraph 3-5(2), states the type of discharge and character of service will be determined solely by the military record during the current enlistment or period of service, plus any extension thereof, from which the Soldier is being separated.  

6.  Also, during the period of service under review, the applicant committed many discrediting offenses which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. 
By the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  

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: 18 September 2013    Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify:  No

Counsel:  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:		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)		AR20130006021



Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1