IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	28 March 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130013326
___________________________________________________________________________

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, she received a general discharge for driving under the influence (DUI) charge a few months prior to her discharge.  She received an Article 15 for the DUI and was reduced to Specialist (SPC)/E-4 and received 45 days of extra duty.  She contends she self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP).  She states before she received the DUI and after the DUI she had not gotten into any trouble.  She has been out of the military for over a year and would like to pursue a career in law enforcement but is finding it impossible to make ends meet as a single parent. 
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			19 July 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				10 May 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Parenthood, AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-8,
JDG, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				HHC, 173rd Brigade Support Battalion 
(Airborne), Germany
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		15 July 2010/2 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		1 year, 9 months, 25 days
h. Total Service:				3 years, 9 months, 18 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			DEP, 080626-080722, NA
RA, 080723-100714, HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist
m. GT Score:					92
n. Education:					GED
o. Overseas Service:				SWA, Germany
p. Combat Service:				Afghanistan (091118-100319)
q. Decorations/Awards:			NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR,
NATO MDL
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		NA
s. Performance Ratings:			NA
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No


SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 July 2008 and reenlisted on 15 July 2012, for a period of 2 years.  She was 21 years old at the time of reenlistment and had a General Equivalency Diploma (GED).  She served in Germany and Afghanistan.  Her record is void of any significant acts of valor or achievement.  She completed 3 years, 9 months, and 18 days of active duty service.  When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving in Bamberg, Germany.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 26 January 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-8, parenthood.  Specifically for on or about 1 July 2011, the applicant informed her command that she no longer had a valid family care plan which interfered with her obligations as a parent and her military duties.  On 11 January 2012, she failed to ensure that she had an adequate family care plan while performing her duties in the U.S. Army. 

2.  Based on the above, the unit commander recommended an honorable discharge.

3.  The record also shows that on 25 January 2012, the applicant indicated she was unable to validate her family care plan and waived the 30 day period to produce one.  

4.  On 31 January 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The battalion commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with an honorable discharge.  The Commander, US Army Garrison Bamberg recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

5.  On 16 February 2012, the applicant was notified by the unit commander that in addition to the previously stated basis for separation as indicated in the notification of separation, dated 26 January 2012, his intent was to consider the following misconduct in determining her characterization of service:  

     a.  In that she did, near Bamberg, Germany, on or about 16 July 2011, physically controlled a vehicle, to wit: a passenger car while drunk.  

     b.  In that she did, near Bamberg, Germany, on or about 16 July 2011, disorderly which conduct was of a nature that brought discredit upon the armed forces. 

6.  On 21 February 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of separation and was advised of her rights.  She indicated she had consulted with counsel on the same date.

7.  On 27 February 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

8.  The applicant was separated on 10 May 2012, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-8, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JDG, and an RE code of 3.             

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  DA Form 5305 (Family Care Plan), dated 24 January 2012, indicates the applicant was counseled on 6 January 2011, that she fully understood the policy on family member care responsibilities.  There was no designation of guardians or escorts, however, the form was authenticated by the applicant and her commander that she had made adequate family care arrangements.

2.  DA Form 5304 (Family Care Plan Counseling Checklist), dated 24 January 2012, indicates the applicant was counseled by her commander on her responsibilities to maintain a family care plan.  The applicant was given 30 days from the date of counseling to submit a complete family care plan.

3.  Two counseling statements, dated 22 September 2011, and 16 December 2011, reflects the applicant was counseled for lack of a valid family care plan.

4.  DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 11 January 2012, reflects the applicant stated she informed her NCO in July 2011, that she did not have a valid family care plan due to her short term care provider departing with her spouse who separated from the military.  She contended she attempted to find a replacement but was unsuccessful.  She then requested to be separated from the military.  She stated she was not able to fulfill her military obligations because she did not have a valid family care plan.

5.  A memorandum of record, dated 25 January 2012, the applicant stated she would not be able to have a family care plan in place within the time allotted and therefore waived her 30 day time period.

6.  Article 15, dated 26 August 2011, for physically controlling a vehicle while drunk and for being drunk and disorderly on or about 16 July 2011.  The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1; forfeiture of $733 per month for two months (suspended) to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 24 November 2011; 45 days of extra duty (suspended), to be remitted if not vacated before 24 November 2011; 45 days restriction; and, a oral reprimand (FG). 

7.  DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 23 February 2011, indicated the applicant could appreciate the difference between right and wrong and had no obvious impairments.
      
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided an online application, dated 5 July 2013, and a DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any in support of her application.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-8 provides that a Soldier may be separated when parental obligations interfere with fulfillment of military responsibilities.  Specific reasons for separation because of parenthood include inability to perform prescribed duties satisfactorily, repeated absenteeism, late for work, inability to participate in field training exercises or perform special duties such as CQ and Staff Duty NCO, and non-availability for worldwide assignment or deployment according to the needs of the Army.  

2.  Unless the reason for separation requires a specific characterization, a Soldier being separated for the convenience of the government will be awarded a character of service of honorable, general under honorable conditions or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status.  

3.  No Soldier will be awarded a characterization of service under honorable conditions under this Chapter unless the Soldier is notified, using the notification procedure, of the specific factors in her service record that warrant such a 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 available military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The applicant was discharged for her inability to perform prescribed duties due to parenthood under the provisions of Chapter 5, AR 635-200.  This involuntary separation was appropriate since the command determined the applicant’s parental obligations interfered with the fulfillment of military responsibilities and she was properly informed as to the specific factors in her service record that would warrant such a characterization.

3.  The record confirms that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  
4.  The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge will allow her to obtain better employment.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

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

6.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and 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:  28 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)		AR20130013326



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1