IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 20 March 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140006774 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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, an upgrade to her discharge will allow her to use her VA benefits to go to school and more job opportunities would become available. The applicant contends, she would like a second chance to move forward and to take the lessons learned from the military and use them in another career. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 14 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 1 May 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: E Company, 307th Brigade Support Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, Fort Bragg, NC f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 3 October 2011/3 years, 22 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 6 months, 29 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 6 months, 29 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 88M1P, Motor Transport Operator m. GT Score: 88 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWTSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: N/A s. Performance Ratings: N/A t. Counseling Statements: Yes - NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 October 2011 for a period of 3 years and 22 weeks. She was 21 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She completed 1 year, 6 months, and 29 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 indicates that on 25 March 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, by reason of pattern of misconduct. Specifically for providing alcohol to minors (120707 and 120906) and failing to report at 0630 accountability formation (120427). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised applicant of her rights. 3. On 26 March 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and submitted a statement on her own behalf. The applicant was afforded seven duty days to submit matters in her behalf; however, failed to submit any matters within the prescribed time as well as submit a delay to submit matters. 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 12 April 2013, 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 1 May 2013, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA 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. Discharge Orders Number 108-0270, dated 18 April 2013, Headquarters, United States Army Garrison Fort Bragg, North Carolina, reflects the applicant was discharged from the Regular Army with an effective date of 25 April 2013. 2. The unit commander’s memorandum reflects that the applicant received a Company Grade Article 15, dated 26 July 2012, for not being at accountability formation on 27 April 2012 and giving alcoholic beverages to a minor on 7 July 2012. The punishment imposed was a reduction to the grade of E-2 (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty and restriction (suspended). The record was void of the Article 15. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 1. The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 7 April 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. 2. Memorandum of Concern, dated 5 November 2013, written by CPT S, applicant’s former commander. CPT S states, due to tough rules and regulations, he was forced to discharge the applicant with a general discharge. CPT S states, the applicant would prove to be a valuable asset to any organization who hires her. Furthermore, he recommends the applicant’s general discharge is upgraded honorable. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None was provided with the 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 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. By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 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 has expressed her desire to have better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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. 5. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 6. 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: 20 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) AR20140006774 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1