IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	14 May 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130015624
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the examiner’s 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 was involuntarily separated from military service for allegedly not signing in for three formations in a one day period.  She states a review of the evidence and pertinent documents do not support a viable reason for separation.  She contends her discharge was unjust and inequitable based on the insignificant infractions.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			20 August 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General
c. Date of Discharge:				10 July 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		NIF, AR 135-175, NA,NA
e. Unit of assignment:				349th Combat Support Hospital, Bell CA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		2 November 2007/Indefinite
g. Current Enlistment Service:		5 years, 8 months, 9 days
h. Total Service:				8 years, 10 months, 10 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			ARNG, 040830-071101, HD
ADT, 070408-070608, HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			O-3
l. Branch/Specialty:				70B00, Health Services Administration
m. GT Score:					NA
n. Education:					Master’s Degree
o. Overseas Service:				NIF
p. Combat Service:				NIF
q. Decorations/Awards:			ASR, NDSM, MOM
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		Yes
s. Performance Ratings:			Yes
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
On 30 August 2004, the applicant was appointed as a Second Lieutenant in the Army National Guard for an indefinite term.  She was 38 years old at the time and a college graduate.  On 
1 November 2007, she was transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) and served 5 years, 9 months, and 9 days.  Her record is void of any acts of valor or significant achievement.  She completed a total of 8 years, 10 months, and 10 days of military service.  When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving with the 349th Combat Support Hospital, Bell, California.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on 24 January 2012, the commander, 807th Medical Command (Deployment Support) (MCDS), notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 135-175, paragraph 2-10, 2-11, and 2-13, for substandard performance of duty, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interests of national security.  Specifically for:

     a.  submitting a falsified Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) scorecard to her unit, with a passing score.

     b.  altering her test scores for the unit prevention leader (UPL) certification , in an attempt to conceal she had failed the final exam.

     c.  missing three consecutive accountability formations; attempting to sign the attendance roster for the corresponding three training assemblies; and conducting herself in a manner unbecoming an officer when she was counseled on proper sign-in protocol.

     d.  submitting a falsified APFT card to her unit with a passing score, in order to remove a flag that was placed on her record for APFT failure.

     e.  behavior unbecoming an officer.

2.  The applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the Army.  She was advised that she could submit a sworn or unsworn statement, submit a rebuttal statement, submit a request for resignation in lieu of elimination, for retirement in lieu of elimination, appear before an Army grade determination review board, or request appearance before a Board of Inquiry (BOI). 

3.  The evidence of record contains a blank election of rights form.  The applicant elected to retain civilian counsel and there is no evidence she elected to submit a statement in 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 22 September 2012, the administrative separation board recommended the applicant be separated from the USAR with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

5.  Effective 28 July 2013, the applicant was discharged from the USAR under the provisions of AR 135-175, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

6.  As a note, the applicant’s discharge packet was available in the record however, many documents were unreadable.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Discharge Orders Number D-07-311367, dated 10 July 2013, Department of Army, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, KY, with an effective date 28 July 2013.

2.  Approval memorandum, dated 25 October 2012, Commander, 807th Medical Command (Deployment Support), Fort Douglas, UT, approving the findings and recommendation of the administrative separation board to involuntarily separate the applicant from the USAR.

3.  Appeal of Administrative Separation Board findings and recommendations, dated 
11 October 2013, and 29 January 2013, by Mr. M, the applicant’s civilian counsel.

4.  Email traffic, dated beginning 22 May 2011 and 22 August 2012.  As a note, many of the email messages are unreadable.  However, several messages referenced an UPL incident and the applicant’s accountability.

5.  Five unreadable counseling statements.

6.  A rebuttal memorandum to a counseling statement on 15 April 2012, from SGT S, dated 
21 April 2012.  The memorandum detail the events of 14-15 April 2012, and request the applicant’s commander excuse the applicant for the mandatory unit training assembly (MUTA).

7.  An email, dated 1 June 2012, between the applicant and MAJ T, regarding an equal opportunity complaint she filed on 4 February 2012.

8.  Equal Opportunity Complaint Form, dated 4 February 2012, regarding hazing and discrimination based on national origin.

9.  Inspector General Action Request, undated, reflects the applicant filed a IG complaint regarding CPT A hazing, reprisal and discrimination. In addition on there is an email message dated 3 May 2012, as an attachment.  

10.  Four OERs dated between 1 November 2008 and 4 March 2012.  She received one “Outstanding Performance/Must Promote,” two “Satisfactory Performance/Promote,” and one “Unsatisfactory Performance/Do not Promote” ratings from her raters.  On two reports, she received a “Best Qualified/No Box Check” rating and on the remaining two reports she received a “Do Not Promote” rating with a “No Box Check” and “Below Center of Mass-Retain” rating from her senior raters (SRs).

11.  DA Form 1059, dated 24 September 2010, reflects the applicant achieved course standard in the Medical Information Management Course.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 149, dated 17 August 2013, an undated self-authored statement, a copy of her appeal of a Show Cause Board, dated 29 January 2013, her military biography, dated June 2013, three letters of support from MAJ L, CPT R, and Mr. R., discharge orders, dated 10 July 2013, and a complete copy of her application packet.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

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

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 135-175 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of officers from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), except for officers serving on active duty or active duty training exceeding 90 days.  Chapters 2 and 3 provide the basis for involuntary separation of USAR officers.  Specific categories include substandard performance of duty, moral or professional dereliction, in the interest of national security, as a result of trial by court martial, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without proper authority from unit training.  

2.  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.

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, the documents and the issue submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The applicant’s record contains a properly constituted Discharge Order 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 USAR.   

5.  The applicant contends the discharge was unjust and inequitable and did not warrant her involuntary separation from the military based on an insignificant infraction.  However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discriminated.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.   

6.  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.  The applicant’s misconduct diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  

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.

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review       Date:  14 May 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)		AR20130015624



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1