IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms.

      BOARD DATE:  	7 February 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130017317
___________________________________________________________________________

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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to general, under honorable conditions and a change to her narrative reason for separation.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, her initial Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) was 69D and it was changed to 68J, however, due to a lack of funding she wasn’t able to attend training for two years.  She contends her discharge packet alluded that she was discharged for unexcused absences from drill.  She states the unit in Miami where she was attending drill knew she had family issues and that her unit was not conducting drill because she was qualified in the civilian sector in her initial MOS, she was excused.  She contends her unit in Puerto Rico did not approve.  She notes the following discrepancies with her discharge packet:

     a.  Her discharge packet states she had no current address.

     b.  There was no S1 at the 387th Medical Logistics in Miami and the First Sergeant (1SG) made a roster of the unit’s information until the Puerto Rico unit properly assigned personnel.

     c.  Her discharge packet was signed and the unit she was drilling with was never notified and she found out about her discharge and reduction in rank after the drill weekend.

     d.  She requested a transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) but because she was not MOS qualified and her packet was not acted on for over a year, she was discharged before being transferred to the IRR per her service requirement.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			18 September 2013
b. Discharge Received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				3 March 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Unsatisfactory Participation, AR 135-178, 
   Chapter 13
e. Unit of assignment:				387 Medical Logistics Company, Miami, FL
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		24 January 2007/8 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		6 years, 1 month, 9 days
h. Total Service:				6 years, 2 months, 11 days
i. Time Lost:					NIF
j. Previous Discharges:			DEP, 070124-070507, NA
   RA, 070508-080515, HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		68D10, Operating Room Specialist
m. GT Score:					94
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				NIF
p. Combat Service:				NIF
q. Decorations/Awards:			NDSM ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No
s. Performance Ratings:			NA
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) on 24 January 2007 for a period of 8 years.  She was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  She was awarded the MOS 68D, Operating Room Specialist.  Her record is void of any significant acts of valor or achievement.  She served a total of 6 years, 2 months, 11 days of active and inactive service and attained the rank of E-4/SPC.  When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving in Miami, Florida.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 17 December 2012, the commander notified the applicant of the initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 135-178, Chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Participation, for failing to attend Extended Combat Training from 27-29 November 2012.  

2.  Based on the above, the commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

3.  The separation notification packet was mailed to the applicant’s last known address on 26 December 2012.  As a note, on 31 October 2012, an email was sent to the applicant’s official military email address notifying her of the intent to separate her for unsatisfactory participation.  The commander indicated in the notification letter that he was suspending the separation action for 45 days, to allow the applicant the opportunity to exercise her right to consult with legal counsel.  On 30 January 2013, the commander subsequently recommended separation from the USAR.  

4.  On 12 February 2013, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  

5.  On 26 February 2013, Department of the Army, Headquarters, 81st Regional Support Command, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, Orders Number 13-057-00031, discharged the applicant from the USAR, effective 3 March 2013, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant was also reduced to E-1/PVT by the same order.               

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Reduction/Discharge Orders 13-057-00031, Department of the Army, Headquarters, 81st Regional Support Command, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, dated 26 February 2013.
2.  Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, dated 24 January 2007.

3.  DD Form 214 showing the applicant was released from active duty training with an honorable discharge on 15 May 2008.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided an online application dated 27 July 2013 and documents associated with her separation to include the notice of the intent to separate her dated 17 December 2012, which included copies of the registered mail receipts and affidavits of service; email communications between Ms. H and MSG A, between SFC S and SFC H, and between SFC S and SFC H pertaining to the applicant's status, two DA Forms 4856 dated 30 November 2012 and 30 January 1013 for unsatisfactory participation; and, miscellaneous documents including her enlistment contract, driver's license, apartment lease, voter registration card, joint service transcript, unit alert roster, AKO profile and Army Reserve Health Readiness Program vouchers.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

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

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 135-178 governs procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army Reserve.  Chapter 13 provides in pertinent part, that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant.  Army Regulation 135-91 states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills acrue during a 1 year period and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in— the Soldier’s refusal to comply with orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification that the Soldier has failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed.  Discharge action may be taken when the Soldier cannot be located or is absent in the hands of civil authorities in accordance with the provisions of AR 135-91, paragraph 2-18, and Chapter 3, section IV, of AR 135–178.   

2.  Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.  







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 documents 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 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 her refusal to participate in extended combat training, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge.  

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 she was never informed about her imminent discharge.  However, the record shows the unit commander attempted to contact the applicant on several occasions and mailed the discharge packet to her last known address via certified mail.  Army Regulation 135-178, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier is subject to discharge for unsatisfactory participation when it is determined the Soldier is unqualified for further military service because the Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant as prescribed in Chapter 4, AR 135-91 and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in the Soldier’s refusal to comply with such orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification that the Soldier failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed.

5.  The applicant contends she nor her command in Miami was not notified of her discharge until after a drill weekend; however, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  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.  

6.  The applicant contends she submitted a request to be transferred to the IRR but was discharged instead.  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 she was unjustly discriminated.  On 31 October 2012, the unit notified the applicant via email that she had been identified for separation for failure to attend battle assembly.

7.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case and an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate.  

8.  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:  7 February 2014     Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  2	No Change:  3
Reason Change:	1	No Change:  4
(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)		AR20130017317



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1