IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	23 June 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130016346
___________________________________________________________________________

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 an upgrade of her general, under honorable conditions discharge to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she received a honorable discharge certificate and her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), reflects her characterization of service as general, under honorable conditions.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			3 September 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				1 December 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Unsatisfactory Performance, AR 635-200,
Chapter 13, JHJ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:				Bravo Battery, 95th Adjutant General Battalion,
(Reception), Fort Sill, OK
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		IADT 7 May 2012/19 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:		6 months, 25 days
h. Total Service:				8 months, 10 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			ARNG, 120322-120506, NA
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-2
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		None
m. GT Score:					NIF
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				None
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			None
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		NA
s. Performance Ratings:			NA
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 22 March 2012, for a period of 8 years.  She was 21 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  She was ordered to initial active duty for training on 7 May 2012, at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and to advance individual training on 24 July 2012.  She completed a total of 8 months and 10 days of active duty service.  When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  She was discharged in the pay grade of PVT/E-1.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 14 November 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. Specifically for repeatedly being seen at behavioral health for personal issues stating she no longer desired to fulfill her obligation to the military; and, that her mental and emotional state of mind, while assigned to PTRP on 9 July 2012. 

2.  Based on the above, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 14 November 2012, the applicant declined the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  

4.  On an unknown date, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts  and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 1 December 2012, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JHJ, and an RE code of 3.     

6.  The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Discharge Orders Number 332-1314, dated 27 November 2012, DAHQs, United States Army Garrison, Fort Sill, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, released the applicant from active duty for training, effective 1 December 2012.

2.  Article 15, dated 27 June 2012, violating a lawful general regulation, Fort Sill Regulation 600-3, dated 20 January 2010, by wrongfully making an offensive comment of a racial nature toward PVT L.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $321, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction (CG). 

3.  Three counseling statements, dated between 3 November 2012 and 15 November 2012, for recommendation for separation under AR 635-200, Chapter 13, recommendation to behavioral health for adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and an informative counseling regarding her depressed behavior.
      
4.  Two command referral requests for the applicant to behavioral health, dated 15 October 2012, and October 2012, for adjustment disorder with depressed mood and feelings of aggressiveness.
5.  MEDCOM Form 699-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 15 October 2012, reflects the applicant was fully alert, mentally responsible, but had poor judgment and fixed and rigid thought content.  She was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and anger.  Her evaluation determined she was able to distinguish between right and wrong.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 149, dated 30 August 2013, a DD Form 214, and a Honorable Discharge Certificate from the United States Army, dated 30 November 2012.

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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  

2.  Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases.

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, her military records, the document and the issue 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.  By the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable characterization of service.  

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 her DD Form 214 is incorrect as it reflects a characterization of service as general, under honorable conditions when she actually received an honorable discharge certificate.  However, the evidence of record reflects the separation authority approved for the applicant to be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  Further, Discharge Orders Number 332-1314, dated 27 November 2012, indicates the applicant was to be discharged effective 1 December 2012.

5.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

6.  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.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no clear or convincing documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.   

7.  Therefore, 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:  23 June 2014        Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

Counsel:  None

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)		AR20130016346



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1