IN THE CASE OF:	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:	31 January 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130015438
___________________________________________________________________________

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 effect, she is trying to reenlist.  She was young at the time of her discharge.  She is a wife and mother of two children.  Her morals and self-discipline have changed.  She feels she is more head-strong to be the best Soldier she can be.  She would like a second chance to prove how worthy she can be for her family.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	19 August 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	17 August 2007
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, 
			Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	558th Transportation Company, 6th Transportation 
			Battalion, 7th Sustainment Brigade, Fort Eustis, VA
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	9 June 2006, 4 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 1 month, 25 days
	h.	Total Service:	1 year, 1 month, 25 days
	i.	Time Lost:	14 days
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-2
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	44B10, Metal Worker
	m.	GT Score:	96
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	None
	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 9 June 2006, for a period of 4 years.  She was 17 years old and a high school graduate.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 44B10, Metal Worker.  Her record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  She completed 1 year, 1 month, and 25 days of active duty service.


SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 3 August 2007, 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 the following offenses:  

a. being AWOL, with intent to avoid field exercises, (070117-070130) and
b. driving while under the influence (070504).

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 7 August 2007, 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.  On 8 August 2007, 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 17 August 2007, 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 record shows she was AWOL during the period 17 January 2007 through 30 January 2007.  There is no record of the applicant’s mode of return to military control.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Article 15, dated 15 February 2007, for being AWOL from unit with intent to avoid field exercises (070117-070130).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $650 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction, (FG). 

2.  Two negative counseling statements, dated 29 January 2007 and 7 May 2007, for operating a motor vehicle without a license and while under the influence of alcohol; informing of the intent to pursue UCMJ and separation actions; being AWOL; and a flight risk.

3.  DA Form 8003, Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment, dated 28 June 2007, indicates the applicant was enrolled by her supervisor. 

4.  An MP Report, dated 5 May 2007, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for being arrested by a local sheriff’s department for driving while intoxicated (070505).

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided none.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, she is a wife and mother of two children, and her morals and self-discipline have changed.  

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 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 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 serious incidents 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 an Article 15 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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 that she was young and immature at the time of the discharge.  The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  

5.  The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service.  However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3.  There are is basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code.  An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist.  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate.

6.  Furthermore, by regulation, a under other than honorable (UOTH) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct.  It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for her receiving a general discharge instead of the normal UOTHC discharge.  The record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the applicant’s command, all requirements of law and regulation were met, and her rights 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.  

7.  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:  31 January 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)		AR20130015438

Page 5 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1