IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 6 February 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140003386 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 honorable and removal of all delinquencies from her AMHRR. 2. The applicant states, in effect, after she completed basic training and advance individual training (AIT) she did not have a security clearance. She completed the paperwork twice to get the clearance, but she was denied each time because of her extreme debt. She was counseled concerning her security clearance and was told in order to keep her MOS 42A, she had to have a security clearance to work her job; without it, she would have to re-class to get another MOS that did not require a security clearance or be honorably discharged. The applicant elected to be discharged because she believed it was best for her. Her commander counseled her on the steps to take to out-process and she could work on it during her reserve secondary training (RST), but instead she worked on her promotion packet. She did not have enough time to complete her separation packet at the end of the day so, her section sergeant, Staff Sergeant Z, stated she would complete it. After a week had passed she never heard anything from her section sergeant. Later, she started receiving delinquency letters in the mail for missed drills. She contends she informed her section sergeant she was pregnant, on bed rest and she emailed SSG Z her doctor’s notes. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 18 February 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 5 July 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: AR 135-178, Chapter-NIF e. Unit of assignment: 12th PO Battalion, Mountain View, CA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 7 April 2009, 6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 2 months, 29 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 2 months, 29 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: USAR/ADT (090511-090924) HD (Concurrent service) k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 42A10, Human Resources Specialist m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: 13 years o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: NIF s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: On 7 April 2009, the applicant joined the Army Reserve for a period of 6 years. She was 25 years old at the time and had 13 years of education. She served a total of 3 year, 2 months and 29 days in the Army Reserve. Her record does not contain any significant awards or acts of valor. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The available evidence shows the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the United States Army Reserve. 2. The record indicates on 5 July 2012, Department of the Army, Headquarters, 63d Regional Support Command, Mountain View, CA, Orders 12-187-00071, discharged the applicant from the United States Army Reserve, effective 12 July 2012, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 3. The applicant’s available record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: Separation order 12-187-00071 dated 5 July 2012. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided an electronic DD Form 293, dated 1 April 2014, DD Form 149, dated 10 December 2013, three self-authored letters dated 5 March 2014, 10 December 2013, and one undated, a copy of her DD Form 214, a copy of CMD memorandum, copies of her development counseling’s for separation from the Army Reserve and denial of a security clearance, copies of her military orders, copies of several memorandums with various dates in reference to the applicant’s unexcused absences, and a copy of the applicant’s medical records. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any with the application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities. 2. The characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier’s service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army Regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. 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 and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The available record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army Reserve. 2. The applicant’s available record contains a properly constituted Order 12-187-00071, which was authenticated by the appropriate military authority. This document identifies the characterization of the discharge and the presumption of government regularity prevails in the discharge process. 3. 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. 4. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that her service mitigated the type of discharge she received from the Army Reserve. 5. The applicant contends, after her return from basic training and AIT she was told she had to have a security clearance to keep her MOS. She submitted the documents twice to obtain a security clearance, but they were denied twice because she had a significant amount of debt. She was counseled and given the option to obtain a security clearance, re-class for another MOS, or be discharged. The applicant chose to be discharged. 6. 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 which 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 and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. 7. 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. 8. Therefore, based on the available evidence, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 6 February 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA 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) AR20140003386 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1