IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms.

      BOARD DATE:  	15 November 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130007109
___________________________________________________________________________

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 her under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that during her term in AIT, she became severely ill.  It was  determined that she had acquired graves disease.   She was held over for several months because she was unable to perform physical activities.  Due to the severity of her condition, she would need surgery to remove her thyroid.  Furthermore, since she was in a training unit it required approval in which it was denied.  She was told by the current commander that she would be processed out for a medical discharge and that she was being sent home on medical leave.  The new commander had expressed to her that she would not be receiving a discharge and would be allowed to go home to seek medical treatment as a civilian.  He stated that Soldiers have problems every day and to suck it up and drive on.  After hearing this and not being in the right state of mind or receiving proper treatment for her illness, she decided to go AWOL.  The Army was her career choice since childhood, but she felt as though this was her only chance at surviving the illness.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			10 April 2013
b. Discharge Received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				20 July 2007
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	  	In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, AR 635-200, 							Chapter 10, KFS, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:				T Company, 266th QM BN, 23D BDE, Fort 							Lee, VA	
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		14 April 2005, 4 years, 20 weeks	
g. Current Enlistment Service:		0 years, 10 month 14 days
h. Total Service:				0 Years, 10 month, 14 days
i. Time Lost:					509 days
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-2
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		None
m. GT Score:					NIF
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				None
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No
s. Performance Ratings:			None
t. Counseling Statements:			None
u. Prior Board Review:				No



SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 April 2005 for a period of 4 years and 20 weeks.  She was 19 years old and a high school graduate.  Her record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  She was at Fort lee, VA when she went AWOL.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates that on 20 July 2007, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS (in lieu of trial by court-martial) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4.

3.  The record contains a DD Form 616 showing that on 25 March 2007, the applicant surrendered after going AWOL from 3 November 2007 through 25 March 2007.   

4.  On 13 July 2007, the Department of the Army, US Army Installation Command, Headquarters, Fort Sill, OK, Orders Number 194-0675, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 20 July 2007.

5.  The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), shows she completed 
10 months and 14 days of creditable active military service.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

There are no negative counseling’s or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 

The applicant submitted an online application and 281 pages of AMHRR and medical documents. 

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None provided with the application.  

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

2.  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.

3.  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.  

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 military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant's signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge.  Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

3.  The applicant's contentions about her medical issues and the lack of support from her new commander were carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service.  Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  This presumption is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity in this case and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge.  

4.  The applicant contends after not receiving proper treatment for her illness, she decided to go AWOL.  She provided numerous documents and articles to support her illness.  However, she had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  

5.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance, it is her responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record.  The applicant will need to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence (i.e., discharge packet) sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration.

6.  Therefore, based on the available evidence and the presumption of government regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief. 

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review     Date:  15 November 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)		AR20130007109



Page 2 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1