IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	18 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130007702
___________________________________________________________________________

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 upgrade of her discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, an upgrade of her characterization is warranted based on her previous years of service and that she was wrongfully discharged.  The applicant contends that she was exiting the military on 30 September 2012 when her First Sergeant (1SG) went through great lengths to have her court-martialed for bogus charges.  She states she has 11 years and 4 months of good service and requests a review of her military records to upgrade her discharge to honorable.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			19 April 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				31 October 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, 
Chapter 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:				42nd Military Police Brigade, Joint Base
Lewis-McChord, WA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		1 October 2009, 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		3 years, 1 month
h. Total Service:				8 years, 4 months, 27 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			DEP, (831129-831205), NA
   RA, (831206-840426), UNC
USAR, (840427-891205), NA
BREAK, (891206-070510), NA
ARNG, (070511-070610), NA
ARNG, (070611-070817), NA
ARNG, (070818-080219), HD
RA, (080220-090930), HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-5
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		42A10, Human Resources Specialist
m. GT Score:					121
n. Education:					Master’s Degree
o. Overseas Service:				Korea
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM,
KDSM, NOPDR, ASR-2, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No
s. Performance Ratings:			NIF
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 February 2008, and reenlisted on 
1 October 2009 for three years.  She was 44 years old at the time she reenlisted and a college graduate.  She served in Korea and earned an ARCOM, AAM and KDSM.  She completed a total of 8 years, 4 months, and 27 days of military service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 26 September 2012, the commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs.  Specifically for:

	a.  urinalysis on 24 May 2012 which sample came back positive for THC, the active component of marijuana

	b.  on 11 June 2012 an unknown substance was confiscated from her vehicle which tested positively as 17 millimeters of liquid Tetrahydrocannabinole (THC), the active metabolite of marijuana

	c.  failed to obey a lawful command from MAJ S on diverse occasions

	d.  failed to obey the lawful order of SGM L on diverse occasions

	e.  failed to obey the lawful order of SFC B on diverse occasions

	f.  failed to be at, or remain at, your appointed place of duty on diverse occasions

	g.  made false official statement to SGT T

	h.  made false official statement on diverse occasions to MSG T

	i.  failed to obey the lawful order of SSG G on or about 7 September 2012

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 15 October 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived her right to an administrative separation board, contingent upon her receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant did not submit a statement in 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.  Further, the applicant’s separation file shows that she agreed to the discharge in lieu of a summary court-martial for multiple charges, including possession of an illegal controlled substance.

5.  On 16 October 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

6.  The applicant was separated on 31 October 2012, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), misconduct-illegal drug abuse, with a general, under honorable discharge, an SPD code of JKK, and an RE code of 4.  

7.  The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  There one positive urinalysis report contained in the record:

 	IR, Random Sample, 6 June 2012, marijuana (THC) 

2.  There were two Field Grade Article 15s:

     a.  Article 15, dated 11 June 2013, for disobeying a lawful command from MAJ S on or about 29 May 2012 and 31 May 2012, and for wrongful use of marijuana on or about 24 April 2012 and 24 May 2012.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of $1,181.00 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and a oral reprimand. 

     b.  Article 15, dated 8 August 2013, for disobeying a lawful order from SGM L on or about 11 June 2012 to on or about 18 July 2012, disrespect in language toward SGT T on or about 15 July 2012, disobeying a lawful order from 1SG T on or about 17 July 2012, disobeying a lawful order from SGM L on or about 18 July 2012, disobeying a lawful order from SFC B on or about 8 July 2012 to on or about 13 July 2012, disobeying a lawful order from SGM L on or about 8 July 2012 to on or about 13 July 2012, making a false statement to SGT T on or about 15 July 2012, and for making a false statement to 1SG T on or about 17 July 2012.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, 30 days extra duty and an oral reprimand.
      
3.  Twelve negative counseling statements dated between 12 March 2012 and 25 July 2013, for not being at the appointed place of duty, leaving work early without permission, reporting late to formation, disrespect to an officer, poor duty performance, disobeying a direct order from a commissioned officer, wrongful use and possession of a controlled substance, lack of integrity, accountability, and respect for NCOs, disobeying a lawful order, and insubordinate conduct toward a warrant, noncommissioned or petty officer.  
      
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States).

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any in support of her 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, 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.  

3.  The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because she was originally due to exit the military on 30 September 2012, and that her 1SG went to great lengths to try and have her court-martialed for bogus charges.  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 was unjustly discriminated.  In fact, the applicant’s two Articles 15 and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct.  By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  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.  

4.  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.

5.  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:  Record Review     Date:  18 October 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)		AR20130007702



Page 7 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1