IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	9 April 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130012319
___________________________________________________________________________

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 characterization from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her recruiter advised her not to add her daughter to her enlistment contract.  Later this nondisclosure ended up causing problems with her chain of command.  She did not want to be discharged.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		5 July 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:			6 August 2007
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, 						JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HHC, Army Evaluation Force, Fort Bliss, TX 
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	22 June 2006, 4 years, 16 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 1 month, 12 days
h. Total Service:			1 year, 1 month, 12 days
i. Time Lost:				3 days
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-2
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	42A10, Human Resources Specialist
m. GT Score:				95
n. Education:				HS graduate
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes	
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant's record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 June 2006, for a period of 4 years and 16 weeks.  She was 19 years old at the time and a high school graduate.   The applicant’s record does not show any significant achievements or acts of valor.  When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Fort Bliss, TX.






SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  On 18 July 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of her intent to process her for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of a pattern of misconduct; specifically for:

	a.  Receiving a Company Grade Article 15 (070313)
	b.  Vacation of suspended punishment (070628)
	c.  Receiving a Field Grade Article 15 (070712)

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and informed the applicant of her rights.

3.  On 20 July 2007, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived an appearance before an administrative separation board even though she was not entitled to one, 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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 25 July 2007, 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 separated on 6 August 2007, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b for a Pattern of Misconduct, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA and an RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant’s record shows 3 days of lost time due to AWOL (070606-070608).  The applicant returned to her unit.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  A FG Article 15, dated 12 July 2007, for going AWOL from (070606-070608).  Her punishment consisted of forfeiture of pay in the amount of $650.00, 45 days of extra duty and restriction.

2.  A CG 15, dated 13 March 2007, for being disrespectful in deportment towards a NCO (070202), disobeying a lawful order for an NCO (070220), failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (070125 and 070222 x 4).  Her punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, suspended, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $303.00, suspended, 14 days of extra duty and restriction.

3.  On 28 June 2007, the suspension of the punishment for reduction in rank and suspension of pay for one month imposed on 13 March 2007 was vacated based on the applicant’s offense of failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 6 June 2007.

4.  There are no negative counseling statements in the applicant’s record.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

A DD Form 293 dated 20 June 2007 and a DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any with the 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 her military records and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient 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 repeated incidents of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s service was marred by two Articles 15; for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; a vacation of suspended punishment and several negative counseling statements.

3.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that her service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

4.  The applicant contends her recruiter advised her to add her daughter to her enlistment contract.  Later this nondisclosure ended up causing problems with her chain of command.  The applicant’s contentions are noted; however, she did not provide any supporting documents to support her allegation.  In addition, 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.  

5.  The applicant contends she did not want to be discharged.  Before initiating discharge proceedings, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about her deficiencies which could lead to separation.  The command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory Soldier.  The evidence contained in the service record establishes the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies.  As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service. 

6.  Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3.  There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code.  An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist.  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. 

7.  Records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.

8.  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:  9 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)		AR20130012319



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1