IN THE CASE OF:   Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	2 August 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130011081
___________________________________________________________________________

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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was discharged for misconduct but the Army doctors were creating a case for her discharge under Chapter 5-17, due to mental health issues that affected her behavior.  She is currently in school but is unable to use the GI Bill to pay for tuition and bills.  She would also like to join the US Army Reserve.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		17 June 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions	
c. Date of Discharge:			17 October 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HHC, 7th Engineer Battalion, Fort Drum, NY
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	21 April 2010, 3 years and 21 weeks	
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 5 months, 25 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 5 months, 25 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None	
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist
m. GT Score:				92
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Korea
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR
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 21 April 2010, for a period of 3 years and 21 weeks.  She was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  She served a tour in Korea and her record documents the award of an AAM.  She was serving at Fort Drum, NY when her discharge proceedings were initiated. 




SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The record shows that on 25 September 2012, 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, for the following offenses:

      a. Unlawfully entering the residence of another Soldier and assaulting that person on 	numerous occasions
      b. Making a false official statement
      c. Breaking restriction
      d. Failing to report to her place of duty on 3 occasions
      
2.  Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 25 September 2012, the applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived an administrative separation board (not entitled) contingent upon receiving a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service, 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 of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 3 October 2012, 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 17 October 2012, for a pattern of misconduct, under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, with an SPD code of JKA and an RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant’s record does not show unauthorized absences or time lost.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  Field Grade Article 15 issued on 24 August 2012, for providing a false statement with intent to deceive (120411), unlawful entry (120508), assault and battery (120508), and breaking restriction (120416).  Her punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $745.00 (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction.  Initially reduced to E-1 but changed to E-2 based on a successful appeal.

2.  Company Grade Article 15 issued on 11 April 2012, for providing a false statement with intent to deceive (120301).  Her punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2 (suspended), forfeiture of pay in the amount of $389.00 and 14 days of extra duty and restriction.  The suspended sentence of reduction to E-2 was vacated on 26 April 2012 for providing a false statement (120411).
3.  Six negative counseling’s dated between 1 March 2012 and 29 August 2012, for offenses related to failure to obey a lawful regulation, failures to report, and driving with a suspended license.  

4.  A civilian police report dated 11 June 2012 and a CID report dated 5 September 2012, which indicate the applicant was the subject of investigations for assault and battery.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

The applicant stated in her application she was providing copies of her mental health records; however, none were found.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states she is attending school.

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 her discharge characterization was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review 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 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 two Articles 15 and several negative counseling statements for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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 she was going to be discharged under Chapter 5-17 due to mental health issues that affected her behavior.  She wants the benefits of the GI Bill to pay for tuition and bills and would also like to join the US Army Reserve.  

5.  The record shows that on 11 September 2012, the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, anxiety, depression and alcohol dependence; however, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct.  The command appropriately processed the applicant for separation from the Army because of her pattern of misconduct.  

6.  Moreover, 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.

7.  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 her overall service record.  

8.  Finally, if reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 

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

10.  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 August 2013	Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

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	UOTH - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions
ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR 20130011081		

Page 6 of 6 pages



ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1