IN THE CASE OF:	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:	26 March 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130012913
___________________________________________________________________________

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 to upgrade the characterization of her service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable. 

2.  The applicant states in her self-authored statement, in pertinent part and in effect, her request is based on inequitable actions taken by her latter chain of command towards her and her military career.  As a result of a first time misdemeanor driving under the influence, she was not given any opportunities to prove she could rehabilitate herself and she was working towards correcting her behaviors.  Two other Soldiers with the same charges were reduced in rank and tasked with additional duties.  They are both male Soldiers and were given the opportunity to rehabilitate and reintegrate into the unit, which causes her to believe her discharge was bias and inequitable.  Since her discharge, she continues to better herself by completing a health services intensive outpatient program and working in community service in the local area.  She shares her experience with others to prevent them from making the poor decisions she has made.  Her driver’s license was reinstated.  She is holding a job and enrolling in college to become a registered nurse.  She firmly believes that if given the opportunity to rehabilitate in the military, she would have succeeded and continued to strive in the military.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	11 July 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	27 April 2012
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200
			paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	28th MP Detachment, 793rd MP Bn, Fort 
			Wainwright, AK
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	8 February 2011, 5 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 2 months, 20 days
	h.	Total Service:	1 year, 2 months, 20 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	31B10, Military Police
	m.	GT Score:	103
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	Alaska
	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 record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 February 2011, for a period of 5 years.  She was 20 years old and a high school graduate.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31B10, Military Police.  Her record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  She completed 1 year, 2 months, and 20 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 11 April 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason misconduct (serious offense), specifically for being involved in a single vehicle accident and was found to be under the influence of alcohol and charged with DUI.

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 12 April 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  In an undated memorandum, 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 27 April 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3. 

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  District court documents, dated 10 March 2012, indicates a finding of guilty for DUI and the imposed sentence, effective 10 March 2012, and the filing of a misdemeanor complaint of DUI. 

2.  Two negative counseling statements, dated 12 March 2012 and 13 March 2012, for driving under the influence of alcohol and being recommended for involuntary separation.

3.  DA Form 8003, Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment, dated 13 March 2012, indicates the applicant was command-referred into ASAP.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided with her self-authored statement, DD Form 214 for service under current review; certificate showing she completed an intensive outpatient program on 27 August 2012; a college official acceptance notification, dated 20 March 2013; and course schedule, dated 9 July 2013. 

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, she has completed a health services intensive outpatient program and began working in community service in the local area; she shares her experience with others to prevent them from making the poor decisions she has made; her driver’s license was reinstated, and she is holding a job while enrolling in college to become a registered nurse.   

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 service record, and the issues and documents 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 standards for acceptable conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The applicant by violating the Army's policy not to abuse alcohol, compromised the special trust and confidence placed in a Soldier.  The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's alcohol abuse policies.  By abusing alcohol, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by a civilian court conviction for DUI and 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 the discharge was inequitable because it was a result of a first time misdemeanor driving under the influence; she was not given any opportunities for rehabilitation towards correcting her behaviors; and two other males Soldiers with the same charges were reduced in rank, tasked with additional duties, and were given the opportunity to rehabilitate and reintegrate into the unit.  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 her issues.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she may have been unjustly discriminated.  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.  

5.  Moreover, regarding the applicant’s contentions that other Soldiers with similar offenses were not discharged, and were given the opportunity to rehabilitate and reintegrate into the unit.  However, the method in which another Soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case.  Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case.

6.  The applicant contends the incident that caused her discharge was her first time driving under the influence, perhaps indicating a single incident in her military career.  Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  

7.  The applicant contends that since leaving the Army she has completed a health services intensive outpatient program and began working in community service in the local area; she shares her experience with others to prevent them from making the poor decisions she has made; her driver’s license was reinstated, and she is holding a job while enrolling in college to become a registered nurse  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  

8.  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.  Accordingly, 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:  26 March 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)		AR20130012913

Page 6 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1