IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	27 June 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130015704
___________________________________________________________________________

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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade.  However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, there was not a pattern of misconduct, only a lack of corrective training and support system by the command.  She was Soldier of the month twice during the period of the pattern of misconduct.  This discharge has caused her many lost opportunities and gave her a bad image.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		26 August 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:			22 April 2010
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14 						Paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			HHC, 16th Combat Aviation Brigade, Fort Wainwright	 					AK
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	12 June 2008, 6 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 10 months, 11 days
h. Total Service:			3 year, 3 months, 14 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (070109-080611)/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist
m. GT Score:				92
n. Education:				GED Certificate
o. Overseas Service:			Alaska/Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (071121-081204)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, NDSM, ICM-W/CS, GWOTSM, NPDR, ASR	 					OSR, MUC
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		No
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant's record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 January 2007, for a period of 4 years and 19 weeks.  She was 17 years old at the time of entry with a GED Certificate.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist.  She reenlisted on 12 June 2008, for a period of 6 years and was 19 years old at the time.  Her record also shows she served a combat tour, earned an ARCOM; she achieved the rank of SPC/E-4.  She was serving at Fort Wainwright, AK when her discharge was initiated.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 30 March 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct.  Specifically for the following offenses:

     a.  failing to report at least thirteen times, 

     b.  disobeying direct orders from her superior noncommissioned officer on several occasions, 

     c.  making careless mistakes resulting in leaving sensitive items unsecure on four separate occasions,

     d.  derelict of her duties by leaving her place of duty,

     e.  violating the visitor policy, and

     f.  been counseled on several occasions for multiple infractions.

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and informed the applicant of her rights.

3.  On 31 March 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement on her behalf, which was not contained in the available records.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  

4.  On 7 April 2010, 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 separated on 22 April 2010, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under 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.  An Article 15, dated 18 November 2009, for without authority, failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty x 3 (090929, 090601, 090528); willfully disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (SFC S) x 2 (090929, 090824), and SGT (M) (090605); and dereliction of duty by failing to report to formation prior to going on sick call (090727); the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $409 pay (suspended), and extra duty for 14 days, (CG).

2.  An Article 15, dated 20 February 2008, for without authority, leaving her appointed place of duty (080218); being disrespectful in deportment towards an noncommissioned officer (SGT E) (080218); the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended), forfeiture of $3250 pay (suspended), forfeiture of $100 pay, extra duty for 14 days and restriction for 14 days, (CG).

3.  The applicant received numerous negative/performance counseling statements, dated between 3 December 2007 and 4 February 2010, for failing to report numerous times, being promoted, performance at the range, substandard performance, failing to obey instructions, disrespecting an NCO, violation of visitation policy, providing misleading information to her supervisor, improper mailroom procedures, leaving sensitive items unsecured, leaving supplies unsecured, leaving her weapon unsecured, being restricted, performance on PT test, missing formation, being late for work, using cell phone during training, failing to perform corrective training, her duty performance, failing to return to duty, financial counseling, failing to accomplish her duties on more than one occasion.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 

The applicant provided a DD Form 149, self-authored statement, letter, Veterans Employment Counselor, and a DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any information with her 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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade.  However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of 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 service record was marred by two CG Articles 15, and numerous counseling statements.

3.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

4.  The applicant contends that there was not a pattern of misconduct, only a lack of corrective training and support system by the command.  The record of evidence shows the applicant received two Articles 15, and was counseled numerous times for various acts of misconduct which clearly established a pattern of misconduct.

5.  Further, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting herself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.

6.  Also, 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.

7.  The applicant additionally contends she was Soldier of the Month twice during the period of misconduct.  The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she was Soldier of the Month on two separate occasions.

8.  Furthermore, the applicant contends this discharge has caused her many lost opportunities and given her a bad image.  The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

9.  Records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.

10.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief. 

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review      Date:  27 June 2014        Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  No

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)		AR20130015704



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1