IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 18 March 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140005607 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, her discharge was unjust because it was based on one incident with no other adverse action. She states, after realizing she had made a mistake she returned to military control. She hoped to received corrective discipline and be able to continue to serve her country. She states, that was not an option given to her after two years of unblemished service, to include one year of foreign service. She states, she is a full-time missionary attempting to return to school to finish her education. She desires to use her GI Bill. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 28 March 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 16 February 2006 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (AWOL), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c (1), JKD, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: E Company, 3rd Battalion, 43rd Air Missile Defense, Fort Bliss, TX f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 6 March 2003/4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 5 months, 3 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 5 months, 3 days i. Time Lost: 188 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist m. GT Score: 115 n. Education: GED o. Overseas Service: Korea p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: AAM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 March 2003, for a period of 4 years. She was 22 years old at the time of entry and had a General Equivalency Diploma (GED). She served in Korea. She completed 2 years, 5 months, and 3 days of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving in Fort Bliss, TX. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 1 February 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense); specifically for receiving and Article 15 for being AWOL from 24 May 2005 until 2 December 2005. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 1 February 2006, the applicant waived her right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in 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 8 February 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on 16 February 2006, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c (1), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKD, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant's record shows she was AWOL during the period 24 May 2005 through 1 December 2005. She indicates in her application she returned to military control. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Article 15, dated 6 January 2006, for being AWOL from 24 May 2005 until 2 December 2005. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $617 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG). 2. DA Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 21 July 2005, reflects the applicant was charged with being AWOL. 3. Several DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated between 24 May 2004 and 13 December 2005, reflecting a change in the applicant’s duty status. 4. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 19 January 2006, reflects the applicant had clear and normal thought process and content, was mentally responsible, and diagnosed with occupational problems. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 18 March 2014, two letters of support, a Mission Teens, Inc certificate, and a Restoration Ranch Pamphlet and a listing of Mission Teen Inc. Centers. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states she is a full-time missionary. 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 documents and the issues submitted with the 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. The applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by and a FG Article 15 for being AWOL and several negative counseling statements. 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 the incident that caused her discharge was the only one in her entire Army career. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 5. The applicant contends that since leaving the Army she has been a full-time missionary. The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. 6. Further, the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 7. The applicant also contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, 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. 8. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 9. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 18 March 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 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) AR20140005607 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1