IN THE CASE OF:	Ms.

      BOARD DATE:	30 May 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130015118
___________________________________________________________________________

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, and to change the narrative reason for her discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she did not adjust well to the military life.  However, when she realized just how much she was struggling, she was already past the mark to get a failure to adapt discharge.  She was having such difficult issues because of depression, anxiety, and medical problems, including issues with her leadership.  She was getting punished for things her NCOs were doing, as well as, other Soldiers.  She felt singled out, so that she would be involuntarily separated and because everyone believed she would not succeed.  Both her company commander, CPT B, and her battalion commander, LTC E, recommended her separation to be an honorable discharge.  The hospital commander, COL H, however, decided on a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  Her mistakes were very minor, including parking in the wrong parking lot and not having my barracks SOP on my door.  Her company and battalion commanders agreed. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	15 August 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	28 December 2012
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-
			12b, JKA, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	A Company, Troop Command, Landstuhl Medical 
			Center, Landstuhl, Germany
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	4 January 2011, 4 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 11 months, 25 days
	h.	Total Service:	1 year, 11 months, 25 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-3
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	68D10, Operating Room Specialist
	m.	GT Score:	104
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	Germany
	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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 January 2011, for a period of 4 years.  She was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 68D10, Operating Room Specialist.  She served in Germany.  Her record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  She completed 1 year, 11 months, and 25 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 20 November 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct, specifically for the following:

	a.	being counseled multiple times regarding misconduct and substandard behavior;
	b.	being counseled (110806), for not attending remedial physical training and showing up late for work on (120724);
	c.	receiving monthly performance counseling, which outlined incidents of showing up late or not showing at all for duty;
	d.	being counseled (120725), for failing to conduct a recall as she was instructed which constitutes a violation of Article 91, UCMJ;
	e.	being counseled (120701), for another violation of Article 91, UCMJ, when she failed to set up an operating room as instructed and again being counseled that day for failing to complete corrective training properly;
	f.	being counseled (120609), for violating the barracks policy when she was found to be burning candles in her room, not having a room inspection sheet posted as required, and for failing to be at her appointed place of duty (120528);
	g.	being counseled (120524), for failing to be at her place of duty, and failing to follow orders (120519);
	h.	being counseled (120510), for violating the LRMC parking policy;
	i.	being counseled (120507), for failing to be at her place of duty;
	j.	being counseled (120427), for being out of uniform and for soliciting an NCO to commit an offense under the UCMJ;
	k.	receiving a monthly performance counseling (120410), which outlined her issues with maintaining her discipline and on the same date, she was counseled for failing to be at her place of duty;
	l.	being counseled (120329), for failing to follow orders; 
	m.	being counseled (120321), for failing to follow orders, failing to be at her appointed place of duty, and showing up late to work call; and
	n.	despite the numerous attempts to correct her behavior, she continued to show a lack of discipline. 

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended an honorable discharge and advised the applicant of her rights.

3.  On 27 November 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted 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 an honorable discharge.  

4.  On 12 December 2012, 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 28 December 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA 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.  Seventeen negative counseling statements, dated between 21 March 2012 and 21 August 2012, for being processed for separation; showing up to work late; not attending “SPOP”; failing to follow orders; failing to report; missing several recalls; disobeying orders; improper corrective training; burning candles in her barracks room; failing to have a room inspection sheet posted; failing to be at her appointed place of duty; performance issues; parking in patient parking slot; and asking an NCO to commit an offense.

2.  Temporary Physical Profile (113111), dated 2 October 2012, indicates an expiration date of 31 December 2012.

3.  Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 5 September 2012, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with: AXIS I, adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features; AXIS II, “v.71.09”-no diagnosis on AXIS II; and AXIS III, right ankle sprain and abdominal pain.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided DD Form 214 for service under current review; VA decision letter, dated 3 July 2013; birth certificate; and applicant’s separation packet. 



POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none. 

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.

4.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, Pattern of Misconduct.

5.  The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3.

ANALYST’S DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge and to change the narrative reason for her discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, her military records, and the documents and issues 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'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 pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by numerous 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 her discharge should be upgraded because her mistakes were very minor; both her company and battalion commanders recommended her for an honorable discharge; and that she was having adjustment issues due to her medical conditions.  Regarding her claim that her mistakes that caused her discharge were minor in nature, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting entries of offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicant’s patterns of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline.  

5.  Furthermore, 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.  Further, the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of her discharge processing or that they were the cause of the numerous incidents of misconduct.  Therefore, the rationale she provided for consideration toward upgrading her discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature.

7.  The applicant contends her immediate commanders recommended her for an honorable discharge but that the separation authority approved her for a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  However, she was advised that the separation authority was not bound by her immediate commanders’ recommendations as to the characterization of her service.  

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 her 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:  Personal Appearance     Date:  30 May 2014      Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  No 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  2	No Change:  3
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)		AR20130015118

Page 7 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1