IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms.

      BOARD DATE:  	2 April 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130011009
___________________________________________________________________________

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.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she received an Article 15 and was demoted one rank from E-3 to E-2, but a clerical error was made on the documentation sent to the finance as a demotion of two ranks; the error was never corrected and the unit was in breach of contract; if the error had not occurred, the outcome would be different.  Her unit demonstrated a substantial amount of disregard in that that her unit did not follow their own rules and regulations; the impropriety was direfully gross and unjust; her unit was in breach of contract, they tried to form a pattern of misconduct, so they could put her out in the worse way possible and not on Chapter 15, Homosexual.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date: 		10 June 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			8 August 2003
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14 						paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HHC, 4th Corps Materiel Management Center, 13th 						Corps Support Command (Rear) (Provisional), 							Fort Hood, TX
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	2 August 2001, 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 3 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 3 days
i. Time Lost:				4 days
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	89B10, Ammunition Specialist
m. GT Score:				84
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, 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 2 August 2001, for a period of 3 years.  She was 20 years old at the time of entry and a HS Graduate.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 89B10, Ammunition Specialist.  Her record also shows she did not earn any awards for acts of valor or meritorious achievements; and she achieved the rank of PFC/E-3.  She was serving at Fort Hood, TX when her discharge was initiated.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 20 June 2003, 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 the following offenses:  

     a.  testing positive for marijuana,

     b.  absenting herself from her unit (AWOL) x 2,

     c.  failing to repair numerous times,

     d.  failing to obey an order, and

     e.  making a false official statement.

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 June 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions (although she was not entitled to a board), and did not submit a statement on her 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 of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 10 July 2003, 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 8 August 2003, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and a RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant’s record of service indicates 4 days of time lost for being AWOL from             7 February 2003 until 8 February 2003, she returned to the unit  and 20 May 2003 until 21 May 2003, mode of return unknown.



EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  An Article 15, dated 17 June 2003 for without authority, absenting herself from her unit (AWOL) x 2 (030520-030522), (030207-030209); without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty x 7 (030402, 030401, 030328, 030206, 030126, 030125, 030103); disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (SGT) (0300401); without authority, leaving her appointed place of duty x 2 (030327, 030206); and with intent to deceive, made a false official statement to 1SG D, SGT A, and SGT D (030306); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $575 pay, extra duty for 14 days and restriction for 14 days, (CG).

2.  An Article 15, dated 6 September 2002 for wrongfully using marijuana (020705-020805); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $619.65 pay x 1 month, and extra duty for 45, (FG).

3.  The record of evidence contains three DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated              10 February 2003 through 27 May 2003, which indicated the present for duty and AWOL dates.

4.  The record also contains a positive urinalysis report coded IR (Inspection Random), dated    5 August 2002 for marijuana.

5.  A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 18 March 2003, which indicated the applicant was mentally responsible and had the capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings.  A Chapter 15 separation was recommended.

6.  She received thirty-two counseling statements, completed between 10 May 2002 and       11 June 2003 for failing to repair numerous times, failing to follow a directive several times, failing to be at her appointed place of duty many times, disobeying a lawful order on more than one occasion, failing to report on time and leaving appointed place of duty, monthly counselings, failing to pay debts numerous times, damaging private property, being AWOL two times, failing to obey order or regulation; missing accountability formation, and receiving a safety briefings.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, self authored statement (6 pages), Enlisted Record Brief, DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), supporting statement, DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Statement), three memorandums, request for separation under Chapter 14, and a DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), with an attachment.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY:

The applicant did not provide any with 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.  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 Articles 15, three DA Forms 4187, a positive urinalysis report, and thirty-two 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 received an Article 15 and was demoted one rank from E-3 to E-2, but a clerical error was made on the documentation sent to the finance as a demotion of two ranks; the error was never corrected and the unit was in breach of contract; if the error had not occurred, the outcome would be different.  The applicant’s contention regarding her reduction from an Article 15 does not fall within the purview of this Board.  The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter.  A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization.

5.  Further, the rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what she believes was unfair treatment is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature.

6.  The applicant also contends her unit demonstrated a substantial amount of disregard in that that her unit did not follow their own rules and regulations; the impropriety was direfully gross and unjust; her unit was in breach of contract, they tried to form a pattern of misconduct, so they could put her out in the worse way possible and not under provisions of Chapter 15, homosexual.  Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers under another chapter of this regulation solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct.

7.  Additionally, 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.  

8.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

9.  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:  2 April 2014       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)		AR20130011009



Page 6 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1