IN THE CASE OF:	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:	11 April 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130013111
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the circumstances surrounding the AWOL incident which indicates the applicant moved from a local area, outside the 50-mile radius, and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  This action entails restoration of grade to E-4/SPC.




      
      
      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 under other than honorable to general, under honorable conditions.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she believes the basis for her discharge was due to a minor problem.  She broke no law while in the service.  She attempted to transfer to other units because her location of residence changed.  Her unit was in Montgomery, AL, while her residential address was in Mobile, AL, a distance of 168 miles.  She communicated with her unit about needing to transfer to Mobile, but the unit did not allow her to drill there to make up for missed drills, instead she was ordered to drill with her unit.  She was unable to travel the distance and explained that to her platoon sergeant and the unit administration.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	16 July 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	15 September 2010
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	AR 135-178
	e.	Unit of assignment:	282nd Quartermaster Co, 3rd Platoon, Montgomery 
			AL 
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	9 June 2007, 6 years (TPU) / 8 years (USAR)
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 3 months, 7 days
	h.	Total Service:	3 years, 3 months, 7 days
	i.	Time Lost:	NIF
	j.	Previous Discharges:	USAR (070609-070625) / NA
			IADT   (070626-071116) / UNC
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	92A10, Automatic Logistical Specialist
	m.	GT Score:	92
	n.	Education:	13 years
	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:	NIF
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No 

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

On 9 June 2007, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve for a period of 8 years of which 6 years were to be served in a TPU.  She was 19 years old at the time and had a year of college.  She served a total of 3 years, 3 months, and 7 days in the U.S. Army Reserve.  Her record does not contain any significant awards or acts of valor.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92A10, Automatic Logistical Specialist.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The available evidence shows the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the United States Army Reserve.  

2.  The record indicates that on 15 September 2010, Department of the Army, Headquarters, 81st Regional Support Command, Fort Jackson, SC, Orders 10-258-00036, discharged the applicant from the United States Army Reserve, effective 15 September 2010, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The orders also directed her reduction in grade to PV1/E-1.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Discharge Orders.

2.  There are no negative counseling’s or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a copy of her discharge orders and DD Form 214, dated 16 November 2007, with her application. 

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities.  

2.  The characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier’s service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army Regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army.  The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. 

3.  Possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general, under honorable conditions, under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status.  However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation.

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 and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The available record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army Reserve.  

2.  The applicant’s available record contains a properly constituted set of orders which was authenticated by the appropriate military authority.  This document identifies the characterization of the discharge and the presumption of government regularity prevails in the discharge process.  

3.  Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that her service mitigated the type of discharge she received from the U.S. Army Reserve.   

5.  The applicant contends the basis for her discharge was due to a minor problem; she communicated to her unit she was unable to travel the 168-mile distance between her residence and her unit, and needed to transfer to a unit near her residence, but was ordered to drill with her unit.  Her contentions were carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service.  Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of her request for an upgrade of the discharge. 

6.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record.

7.  Therefore, based on the available evidence, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief.

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the circumstances surrounding the AWOL incident which indicates the applicant moved from a local area, outside the 50-mile radius, and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  This action entails restoration of grade to E-4/SPC.
































SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review         Date:  11 April 2014         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel:  None

Board Vote:
Character Change:  4	No Change:  1
Reason Change:	0	No Change:  5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:		No
Issue a new Discharge Order:  	Yes
Change Characterization to:  	General, Under Honorable Conditions (GD)
Change Reason to:  		NA 
Change Authority to:  		NA
Change RE Code to:  		NA
Grade Restoration to:  		E-4/SPC
Other: TO: ARBA Promulgation Team. Arlington, VA                              Date: 11 April 2014

     The Army Discharge Review Board, under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant named in page 1, directs the ARBA Promulgation Team, Arlington, VA to issue a new discharge order to the applicant which reflects the following directed changes:

           ( X  )	Change characterization of discharge to General, Under Honorable Conditions.
           ( X  )	Restoration of grade to E-4/SPC













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)		AR20130013111

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1