IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	23 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130008052
___________________________________________________________________________

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 discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, her discharge was inequitable as she was not offered or allowed a removal from her company to show that she was an outstanding Soldier.  Her leadership did not give her a chance to prove her work ethic.  She was able to do her job as a Soldier, but her leadership doubted her credibility.  She requests the upgrade for educational purposes in order to provide a better future for her family.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		25 April 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			16 November 2010
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12B
   JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			63th Chemical Co, Fort Campbell, KY
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	14 June 2007/4 years, 21 weeks 
g. Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 5 months, 3 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 9 months, 9 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	42A10, Human Resources Specialist
m. GT Score:				88
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Afghanistan
p. Combat Service:			Afghanistan
q. Decorations/Awards:		ACM CS,NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO, CAB 
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 Army Reserve on 7 July 2010 for a period of 8 years.  She was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  She entered Active duty in the Army on 14 June 2007 for 4 years and 21 weeks.  She served in Afghanistan and earned the ACM, the NATO Medal and a CAB.  She completed 3 years, 5 months, and 3 days of active duty service.  
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 13 October 2010, the commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, 14-12b.  Specifically, for a continued pattern of disrespect toward her superiors.

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

3.  On 13 October 2010, the applicant waived her right to counsel and 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.  On 3 November 2010, the separation authority approved the waiver request and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 16 November 2010, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA, and an RE code of 3. 

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 21 May 2010, for leaving her place of duty, failing to be at her appointed place of duty; two acts of contempt towards a superior, three acts of disrespect, and failing to obey a lawful order on 16 April 2010; for one act of contempt toward a superior on 15 April 2010; and, for failing to obey a lawful order, contempt and disrespect towards a superior on     9 April 2010.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3, 14 days of extra duty and an oral reprimand. (CG) 
      
2.  Twelve negative counseling statements, dated between 26 March 2008 and 7 June 2010, for Article 15 punishment, insubordination, failing to report, disobeying orders, disrespect and poor performance.
      
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD 293, dated 16 April 2013 and a DD Form 214. 


POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None stated.

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.  By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality her service below that meriting an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and several 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 was not given the opportunity to show that she was an outstanding service member.  The applicant’s record shows she received multiple counseling’s during her service in an effort to improve her behavior; and, therefore the evidence shows she was afforded the opportunity to show she was an outstanding Service Member and to prove her work ethic.  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 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 AMRY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review     Date:  23 October 2013     Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify:  No

Counsel:  No

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)		AR20130008052



Page 2 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1