IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	18 September 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130006076
___________________________________________________________________________

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 under other than honorable conditions to general, under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that an upgrade of her characterization of service would allow her the opportunity to receive medical treatment at the VA Hospital for PTSD.  She contends while serving in Iraq her behavior changed and that she was admitted to mental health hospital for suicidal thoughts for several weeks.  After her discharge from the hospital she went AWOL as a result of no one helping her with her problems; she was later discharged from the military.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		25 March 2013
b. Discharge received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			6 September 2007
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200 							Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HHD, 703d BSB, 4th BCT, 3d IN Div, Fort Stewart 						GA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	12 December 2005, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 8 months, 25 days
h. Total Service:			4 years, 9 months, 10 days
i. Time Lost:				49 days
j. Previous Discharges:		RA-021008-051211/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l.  Military Occupational Specialty:	25U10, Sig Supt Sys Spec
m. GT Score:				89
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (050127-060113)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, AAM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM 						KDSM, ASR, OSR, CAB
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	Yes
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 2002.  On 12 December 2005, she reenlisted for a period of 4 years.  She was 22 years old at the time of reenlistment and a high school graduate.  Her record indicates she served a period of combat in Iraq, earned several awards including an ARCOM, two AAM's, and the CAB, and achieved the rank of SPC/E-4.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record shows that on 3 July 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct (serious offense) for receiving several counseling statements for various misconduct to include being AWOL from 20 March 2007 to 8 May 2007 and testing positive for ecstasy.  

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

3.  On 11 July 2007, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon her receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions.  The applicant did not submit a statement on her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 26 July 2007, the separation authority disapproved the applicant's request for a conditional waiver of an administrative separation board and referred her case to a board.

5.  On 7 August 2007, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of her rights.  

6.  On 16 August 2007, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel.  The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

7.  On 27 August 2007, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

8.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 6 September 2007, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  There is a positive urinalysis report contained in the record coded; PO, (Probable Cause), dated 16 December 2006, MDMA.

2.  Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment, dated 21 December 2006, indicating the applicant was hospitalized due to physical violence, causing Soldier to undergo drug testing.

3.  CID Report, dated 15 February 2007, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongful use of hallucinogens.

4.  Four negative counseling statements dated between 9 January 2007 and 27 June 2007, for going AWOL, insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer, failure to obey orders and regulations, testing positive for MDMA, and notification for separation IAW AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c.

5.  A Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 May 2007, which diagnosis the applicant with an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood and substance abuse disorder.  However, the applicant was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriated by the command.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, three letters of support, emergency care & treatment document, dated 16 December 2006, and 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 misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by her incident of misconduct and four 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 needs an upgrade of her discharge to give her opportunity to received medical treatment for her PTSD.  However, the service record contains no evidence of a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis, and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  The record indicated the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood and substance abuse disorder.  The applicant was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriated by the command.  The applicant also had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible.

5.  The applicant also contends she was AWOL as a result of not receiving any help from her unit for her medical problems.  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.  

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:  18 September 2013   Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel: None

Board Vote:
Character Change:  2	No Change:  3
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)		AR20130006076



Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1