IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 8 August 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140004942 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of her service to include her combat service and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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. Counsel requests an upgrade of the applicant’s under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. Counsel states, in effect, the applicant served nearly eight years in the military and was discharged for failing to report the criminal activity of her spouse, SPC C. He contends there was extenuating and mitigating circumstances to justify the applicant’s retention in the military or honorable discharge. He states the applicant was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a Major Depressive Disorder, and a victim of domestic violence. Counsel would like the Board to note the applicant’s accomplishments: a. Two combat deployments to Afghanistan with over 350 missions. b. Served as a Platoon Sergeant. c. Completed Anger Management classes, Prime For Life, and Stress Management classes. d. Enrolled in Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention Program (ASAP) and began seeking regular counseling. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 18 March 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 2 July 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 3rd Battalion (R)(P), 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade(R)(P), Fort Bragg, NC f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 6 February 2007/6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 5 years, 4 months, 27 days h. Total Service: 9 years, 6 months, 3 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 030630-040119, NA RA, 040120-070205, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-6 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 68W1O, Health Care Specialist m. GT Score: 117 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (070109-080208), (090423-100331) q. Decorations/Awards: Air Medal-3, JMUA, MUC, AGCM-2, NDSM, ACM-2 CS, GWOTSM, NPDR, ASR, OSR-3, NATO MDL, CMB, AV-BAD r. Administrative Separation Board: Yes s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 January 2004, for a period of 4 years and reenlisted in the Army 6 February 2007, for a period of six years. She was 24 years old at the time of reenlistment and a high school graduate. She served in Afghanistan and earned three Air Medals. She completed 9 years, 6 months, and 3 days of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record shows that on 6 January 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct (serious offense). Specifically for failing to report the production, possession, and use of spice between 18 October 2010 and 31 October 2010. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of her rights. 3. On 10 January 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested her case be heard by an administrative separation board. The applicant elected to submit a statement on her own behalf; however, the record is void of her statement. 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 4. On unknown date, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of her rights. 5. On 7 March 2012, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant’s discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 6. On 15 March 2012, the applicant’s counsel requested suspension of the discharge or, alternatively, an upgrade in the characterization of service. 7. On 5 April 2012, the separation authority denied counsel’s request to suspend or upgrade the applicant’s under other than honorable conditions characterization of discharge, approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 8. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 2 July 2012, under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c for misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3. 9. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. . EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Article 15, dated 29 July 2008, promoting inappropriate relationships with subordinates, failing to stop underage Soldier from consuming alcohol, dereliction in the performance of her duties, and that she negligently failed underage alcohol consumption, making a false official statement, and participating in conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of $1024 per month for one month (suspended), and is to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 29 January 2009 (FG). 2. Seven NCOERs covering the period of May 2006 to 7 February 2012. On two reports, the applicant was rated as “Among the Best,” on four reports she was rated as “Fully Capable,” and on the remaining report she was rated as “Marginal” by her rater. She received three “2/1” ratings, two “2/2” ratings, a “3/3” rating and a “4/4” rating from her senior rater (SR). EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 27 February 2014 with all listed enclosures, an authored statement by her counsel 20 March 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not submit any in support of 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. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (serious offense). 5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge and the change to the narrative reason was carefully considered. 2. After examining the applicant’s record of service, her military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to general, under honorable conditions for the following reasons: a. Length and quality of service: The applicant served 5 years, 4 months, 27 days of a 6-year enlistment, thus the preponderance of her service was honorable. b. The record confirms the applicant received several awards, specifically three Air Medals and a Combat Medic Badge (CMB). c. The applicant completed 24 months of combat service in Afghanistan. 3. This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service may now be too harsh and as a result inequitable. 4. The applicant contends that she experienced symptoms of PTSD and a major depressive disorder. However, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 5. The applicant contends that she was a victim of domestic violence and was experiencing other family issues that affected her behavior and ultimately caused her to be discharged. However, she had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review 6. In view of the foregoing, it appears the characterization of the discharge is now inequitable and it is recommended the Board grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of her service to include her combat service and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 8 August 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No Counsel: Yes [redacted] Witnesses/Observers: No Board Vote: Character Change: 4 No Change: 1 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: Yes Change Characterization to: Honorable 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) AR20140004942 Page 6 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1