IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	2 May 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130014706
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the analyst’s Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of her service to include her combat service.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  





      
      
      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 from general under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was given a CG Article 15.  The punishment imposed consisted of a loss of rank, pay, and extra duty.  She had no other acts of misconduct prior to or after the isolated incident in 25 months of service.  She was discharged for the same incident she received the Article 15.  She was not given a chance to be rehabilitative prior to her discharge.  

 DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		12 August 2013
b. Discharge received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			26 April 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200,  							Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			E Forward Support Company, 1st Battalion, 12th 						Cavalry Regiment, 3d Brigade Combat Team, 1st 						Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	29 March 2010, 3 years and 25 weeks		
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 28 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 28 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l.  Military Occupational Specialty:	91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic
m. GT Score:				102
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			SWA
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (110202-111215)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, NDSM, ICM-w/CS, ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		None
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 March 2010, for a period of 3 years and 25 weeks.  She was 25 years old at the time of entry and was a high school graduate.  Her record indicates she served a combat tour in Iraq and at the time of her discharge she was serving at Fort Hood, TX.  Her record shows she was awarded an ARCOM.


SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The applicant’s record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army.  The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  She was discharged as a PVT/E-2.  The applicant provided a copy of the unit commander’s recommendation and a partial copy of the CG Article 15.  The record only contains the separation authority’s decision memorandum.

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for commission of a serious offense, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The DD Form 214 shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKQ and a reentry (RE) code of 3.  

3.  On 5 April 2012, the unit commander’s recommendation shows the applicant was recommended for separation due her wrongfully engaging in an indecent act, by asking a fellow Soldier to show and play with his penis via Yahoo Messenger.

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

5. The separation authority, waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for commission of a serious offense.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  The separation authority’s decision memorandum, showing he waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

2.  There are no counseling statements or UCMJ actions in the record.  

3.  The applicant provided the second page of a CG Article 15, undated, showing the punishment imposed consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $389.00 pay, 14 days extra duty and restriction.  The applicant did not provide a copy of page one detailing the complete charges.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, DD Form 214, part of the Article 15, and the commander’s recommendation memorandum.





POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None provided 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.

ANALYST’S 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 military records and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature.      

3.  The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c by reason of misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The applicant's contentions about her misconduct was an isolated incident, was discharged for the same Article 15, and was not given a chance to be rehabilitative prior to her discharge were carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service or the specific reason for the discharge.  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 this request for an upgrade of the discharge. 

5.  In addition, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier.  

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 and the government presumption of regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus the analyst 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 analyst’s Discussion and Recommendation, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of her service to include her combat service.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  









SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review       Date:  2 May 2014       Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  3	No Change:  2
Reason Change:	0	No Change:  5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:		Yes
Change Characterization to:	Honorable
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)		AR20130014706



Page 5 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1