IN THE CASE OF:	

      BOARD DATE:  	18 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130006587
___________________________________________________________________________

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 an upgrade because she is currently a student and had paid into her GI Bill.  She has tried to use the percentage of which she is entitled to, but was denied because of the characterization of her discharge.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	1 April 2013 
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions 
	c.	Date of Discharge:	15 January 2011 
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, Paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	1st Replacement Company, Special Troops 
			Battalion-Korea, Yongsan, Korea
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	16 September 2009, 3 years, 16 weeks
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 4 months, 0 days 
	h.	Total Service:	1 year, 4 months, 0 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-2
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	92G10, Food Service Operations Specialist
	m.	GT Score:	94
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	Korea
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	NDSM; GWOTSM; KDSM; 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 16 September 2009, for a period of 3 years and 23 weeks.  She was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  She served in Korea.  Her record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  She completed 1 year and 4 months of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 9 December 2010, 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 receiving a company grade Article 15 (100901), for willfully disobeying a lawful order of an NCO, and behaving with disrespect toward her superior commissioned officer and superior NCO.

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 20 December 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and 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 commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 4 January 2011, 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 15 January 2011, 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 1 September 2010, disobeying an NCO on two occasions (100818, 100722), (continuation sheet NIF).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $337, 14 days of extra duty and restriction, oral reprimand, (CG). 

2.  Article 15, dated 23 November 2010, failing to go to her appointed place of duty on two occasions (100924, 100921), disobeying an NCO (100914).  The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $723 per month for two months (suspended), 45 days of extra duty and 45 days of  restriction (suspended), (FG).

3.  Nine negative counseling statements, dated between 13 August 2010 and 28 December 2010, for being insubordinate toward an NCO; failing to obey an order or regulation; being processed for involuntary separation; failing to be at her appointed place of duty; being in the wrong uniform; violating barracks smoking policy; disobeying an NCO; and disrespecting an NCO.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a letter of enrollment verification, dated 22 April 2012, indicating she is a full time student with a career technical institute with schedules, dated 13 January 2013.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, she is enrolled in a technical institute.  

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 her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by two Article 15 actions 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 that an upgrade of her discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill.  However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.

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:  18 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)		AR20130006587

Page 2 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1