IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	25 June 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130017497
___________________________________________________________________________

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.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, her discharge was related to a mental illness condition.  She contends she received documentation from an Army medical board offering her an honorable discharge however, her DD Form 214 reflects otherwise.  She states she received medical treatment at Fort Sam Houston, Texas between October 2008 and January 2009.  She returned to her home and continued treatment as well and received documentation in 2012 to request an honorable discharge.  She contends the narrative reason for her discharge is incorrect because she was under the care of a mental health professional at the time.  She is requesting an upgrade due to medical reasons.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			20 September 2013
b. Discharge Received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				14 June 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Unsatisfactory Participation, AR 135-178, NIF 
NIF
e. Unit of assignment:				HHC, 327 Military Police Battalion, Arlington
Heights, IL
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		29 May 2008/8 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		4 years, 16 days
h. Total Service:				4 years, 16 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			ADT, 080722-090206, HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		68S, Preventive Medicine Specialist
m. GT Score:					NIF
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				NIF
p. Combat Service:				NIF
q. Decorations/Awards:			NIF
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 United States Army Reserve on 29 May 2008, for a period of 8 years.  She was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  Her record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement.  She completed 4 years and 16 days of creditable military service.  When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army Reserve.  

2.  The available evidence in the record indicates that on 7 June 2012, DA HQS, 88th Regional Support Command, Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, Orders Number 12-159-00052, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 14 June 2012, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade by the same orders effective 7 June 2012.

3.  The record contains a properly constituted order which indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.   

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  Orders Number 12-159-00052, dated 7 June 2012, reduced the applicant in grade from E-4 to E-1, effective 7 June 2012, and discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 14 June 2012.

2.  DD Form 214 reflects the applicant successfully completed active duty for training and was honorably discharged on 6 September 2009.

3.  The Soldier Management System (SMS) reflects the applicant was discharged for unsatisfactory participation, effective 14 June 2012.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 10 September 2013, Discharge and Reduction Orders Number 12-159-00052, dated 7 June 2012, a notification letter of medical unfitness for retention, dated 9 February 2012, a partial disability counseling statement, dated 
14 August 2011, and a partial letter from Dr. P, Mental Health Consultant, dated 27 July 2012.


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 one 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.  

3.  Possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general, under honorable conditions, under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status.  However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation.

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 issue 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 the former Soldier’s discharge from the Army.  However, the record shows that on 7 June 2012, DA HQS, 88th Regional Support Command, Fort McCoy, WI, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 14 June 2012, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

3.  Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity shall prevail, as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The applicant's contentions regarding her mental issues were carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service.  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 and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge.  

5.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record.

6.  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:  Records Review      Date:  25 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 Discharge Order	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)		AR20130017497



Page 5 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1