Application Receipt Date: 060922 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's DD Form 293 and attached documents. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 050915 Chapter: 12 AR: 175-138 Reason: Misconduct-Pattern Of Misconduct RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: 3rd Battalion, 377th Regiment, 2nd Brigade (BCT), 95th Division (Institutional Training), Shreveport, LA 71107-7926 Time Lost: NIF Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 650502 Current ENL Date: 020106 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 08 Mos, 10 Days ????? Total Service: 16 Yrs, 08 Mos, 28 Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR-881217-890213/NA ADT-890214-890617/UNC USAR-890618-951027/NA USAR-951028-970401/NA ARNG-970402-990207/NA USAR-990208-020105/NA Highest Grade: E7 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 71L10 Administrative Spec GT: 107 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ARCAM, NDSM, NCOPDR w/2, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 7 December 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 12, AR 135-178, Paragraph 12-1b, by reason of misconduct—pattern of misconduct (The Soldier violated the standards of behavior expected of a Drill Sergeant and an NCO in the U. S. Army. Furthermore, she failed to adhere to the standards set forth in TRADOC Regulation 350-6, and violated battery policy in the duties of personnel on fire guard), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 17 December 2002, the senior commander concurred with the unit commander and recommended separation from the United States Army Reserve with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant's election of rights are not contained in the available record and Government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. Because the applicant was recommended for an under other than honorable conditions discharge; the applicant was entitled to have her case heard by an administrative separation board. On 3 August 2003, the Board met and the applicant appeared with counsel. The Board recommended that the applicant be retained in the service with reassignment, and that she can satisfactorily perform duties in some area other than Drill Sergeant. The evidence of record further shows that on 16 August 2005, Headquarters, 95th Division (Institutional Training), Oklahoma City, OK, Orders 05-228-00012, discharged the applicant from the United States Army Reserve, effective date: 16 August 2005. The applicant has a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand dated 16 March 2004, for unprofessional conduct in her Official Military Personnel File. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel) provides for the separation of enlisted personnel of the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. Chapter 12 of this regulation defines misconduct by reason of one or more of the following: minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense (to include abuse of illegal drugs,) and conviction by civil authorities. The service of a Soldier discharged for reasons indicated in paragraph 12-1, will normally be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. If warranted by the Soldier's overall record, a characterization of service of under honorable conditions may be furnished. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available records for the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents she submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicant's characterization of service be fully honorable. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh and as a result it is inequitable. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst found that the the overall length and quality of the applicant's service; and the administrative separation board's recommendation to retain her in the service with reassignment, and that she can satisfactorily perform duties in some area other than Drill Sergeant, mitigated the discrediting entries in her service record. The analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. This action entails a restoration of grade to SFC/E7. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 31 Octoober 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change 3 No change 2 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - Reason (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board does not condone the applicant's misconduct; however, determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service; and the circumstances surrounding her discharge, mitigated the discrediting entries in her service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted not to change it. This action entails a restoration of grade to SFC/E7. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: TO: ARBA Support Division-St Louis Date: 9 November 2007 The Army Discharge Review Board, established under the provisions of Section 30, Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 22 June 1944 and codified as Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant named in Part I directs that the ARBA Support Division-St Louis issue a new discharge order to the applicant which reflects the following directed changes: ( X ) Change characterization of discharge to General, Under Honorable Conditions. ( X ) Restoration of grade to SFC/E7 RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: SFC/E7 XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 9 November 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060013482 Applicant Name: Ms. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages