IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 May 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140003592 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 discharge characterization from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she was treated unfairly and unjustly by her command. She was discharged for one Article 15; she had not been in any trouble and should have been given another chance. She was a good Soldier and desires to receive VA benefits. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 24 February 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 14 November 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: A Company, 426th Brigade Support Battalion, Fort Campbell, KY f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 9 June 2009, 3 years and 23 weeks/12 month extension (120403) g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 5 months, 6 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 5 months, 6 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist m. GT Score: 101 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (100502-110425) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-W/CS, GWOTSM, NPDR, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL, VUA, MUC, ASUA r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: No t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 June 2009, for a period of 3 years and 23 weeks with a 12 month extension. She was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist. Her record also shows she served a combat tour, earned an ARCOM: and achieved the rank of SPC/E-4. She was serving at Fort Campbell, KY when her discharge was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 12 September 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of commission of a serious offense, for receiving a FG Article 15 for slashing another Soldier’s tire with a knife and using provoking words (120530). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of her rights. 3. On 24 October 2012, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and waived her right to do so, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit a statement on her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 29 October 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 14 November 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. An Article 15, dated 7 June 2012, for slashing the tires of PFC K.C. with a knife (120530); and wrongfully using provoking words (1120530); the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $973 pay for two months and extra duty for 45 days, (FG). 2. She received two counseling statements dated, 19 July 2012 and 1 November 2012, for debt avoidance counseling. 3. A DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 7 September 2012, indicating the applicant was screened for PTSD and mTBI IAW OTSG/MEDCOM policy memo 10-040. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for Chapter 14 consideration per her command. The applicant screened positive for PTSD; however, she met medical retention standards, and this did not contribute to her alleged misconduct. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, two letters of recommendation, DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), ARCOM certificate, DA Form 3340-R (Request for Reenlistment or Extension in the Regular Army), understanding for extension memorandum, DA Form 1695 (Oath of Extension of Enlistment), DA From 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), warrior leader course certificate, DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), regimental affiliation certificate, basic training completion certificate, Environmental Stewardship Award Certificate, Operation Smart Award Certificate, and an achievement certificate. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any information with her application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. 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 issues and documents submitted with her 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. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15 and a negative counseling statement. 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 treated unfairly and unjustly by her command; and she should have been given another chance. Although the applicant alleges that she was treated unfairly and unjustly during her military service, there is no evidence in her military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention. Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge. 5. Further, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The characterization of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with her overall service record. 6. The applicant further contends she was discharged for one Article 15; and she had not been in any trouble. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization of service. 7. The applicant also contends she was a good Soldier. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of her service (to include her combat service) prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge under review. 8. The applicant desires to receive VA benefits. Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 9. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 10. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 20 May 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 2 No Change: 3 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) AR20140003592 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1