IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms.

      BOARD DATE:  	11 March 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130015998
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony 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 an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge to general, under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she is a combat veteran that suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and other medical issues.  She contends her medical issues are related to her deployment to Afghanistan for which she earned a Purple Heart (PH).  She is requesting an upgrade because she needs medical care.  Her application indicates she submitted a copy of her medical records however they were not contained in the file.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			26 August 2013
b. Discharge Received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				17 April 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, AR 635-200, 
Chapter 10, KFS, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:				Golf Battery, 4-319th Airborne Field Artillery 
Regiment, Bamberg, Germany
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		11 March 2009/ 5 years, 19 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:		2 years, 2 months, 24 days
h. Total Service:				2 years, 2 months, 24 days
i. Time Lost:					318 days
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		88M10, Motor Transport Operator
m. GT Score:					NIF
n. Education:					Some College
o. Overseas Service:				SWA
p. Combat Service:				Afghanistan, 091122-100610
q. Decorations/Awards:			PH, NDSM ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, 
OSR-2, NATO MDL
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		NA
s. Performance Ratings:			NA
t. Counseling Statements:			NIF
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 March 2009 for a period of 5 years and 19 weeks.  She was 25 years old at the time of entry and had some college.  She served in 
Afghanistan and earned a Purple Heart (PH).  She completed 2 years, 2 months, and 24 days of active duty service.  When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving in Bamberg, Germany.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a general court-martial order, dated 10 August 2012.

2.  The General Court-Martial Order 15 indicates that the applicant was arraigned at Schweinfurt, Germany for the following charges:

     a.  Charge I, Article 86, for failure to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty on three occasions (091201 x 2 and 091212).

     b.  Charge II, Article 89, for disrespect toward her superior commissioned officer, on 9 November 2010.

     c.  Charge III, Article 91, for using disrespectful language toward an NCO on two occasions (091215 and 101108).

     d.  Charge IV, Article 92, for violating a lawful general order, by wrongfully consuming alcohol.

     e.  Charge V, Article 120, for engaging in sexual contact.

     f.  Charge VI, Article 134, for wrongfully communicating a threat to stone a person to death and to slit a person’s throat while sleeping.

     g.  An additional charge to Article 86, for failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty x 8 (110215, 110216, 110217, 110218, 110221, 110222, 110223, 110224).

     h.  An additional charge to Article 89, for disrespect towards an NCO x 2 (110316 x 2).

3.  On 13 April 2013, the arraignment proceedings were terminated and the applicant’s request for discharge pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, was approved with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  The charges and specifications were withdrawn and dismissed by the convening authority on 8 August 2012.

4.  The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  

5.  The DD Form 214 indicates that on 17 April 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  Further, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS and a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4.

6.  The applicant’s available record does not show any evidence of actions under the UCMJ or unauthorized absences however it shows the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 1 June 2011 through 13 April 2012.  Her mode of return was not known.

7.  On 16 April 2012, Department of the Army, Installation Management Command-Europe, Bamberg Transition Center, APO AE, Orders Number 107-0001, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 17 April 2012.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  General Court-Martial Order Number 15, dated 10 August 2012, indicated the applicant was charged with eight charges in violation of the UCMJ.

2.  Discharge Order 107-0001, dated 16 April 2012, Department of the Army, Installation Management Command-Europe.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 21 August 2013, and a DD Form 214. 

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

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

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  

2.  Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  

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 military records, the issues and documents 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 specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 which was not authenticated by the applicant's signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge.  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.  

3.  The applicant’s record also contained a general court-martial order that indicated she was arraigned on eight charges; however, the charges against her were dismissed before she left the Army.  This action is a procedural step which is part of a normal process, when an alternative forum is chosen.  In this case, the charges were dismissed because the applicant requested to be discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial and the convening authority approved that request. 

4.  There is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service.  Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  This presumption 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 in this case and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge.  

5.  The applicant contends that medical issues contributed to her discharge from the Army.  However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge or behavior was the result of any medical condition.  Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication.

6.  The applicant contends she suffers from PTSD and a TBI.  However, the service record contains no evidence of a PTSD or TBI diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  

7.  It is the applicant’s responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record.  The applicant needed to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence (i.e., discharge packet) sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration.

8.  Therefore, based on the available evidence and the presumption of government regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief. 





SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Personal Appearance     Date:  11 March 2014     Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes

Counsel:  yes [redacted]

Witnesses/Observers:  Yes - Mother

DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE:

1.  The applicant submitted no additional documents or contentions.

2.  In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing.

Board Vote:
Character Change:  1	No Change:  4
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)		AR20130015998



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1