IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 28 July 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140008316 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony, and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (applicant received an uncharacterized discharge a year later) and the applicant’s testimony 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. The applicant requests an upgrade of her general, under honorable conditions discharge to fully honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she was discharged from the military during basic combat training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. She states she became depressed after she injured her hip and was ordered to go through a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). She states she was disappointed in herself but still wanted to show her leadership she could be a good Soldier. She contends she was placed in hold-over status and was ridiculed by the cadre and other Soldiers. She states she only wanted to go home and started committing acts of misconduct in order to speed the process up. She contends her main purpose of requesting the discharge upgrade is so she can gain employment with the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department. She would like the Board to note her accomplishments since separating from the military, which includes: a. She earned her Bachelor’s of Science Degree in Social Work. b. She is currently enrolled in school for a Master’s Degree in Forensic Psychology. c. She has not been in any trouble since being separated from the military. d. She earned employee of the month at her current place of employment. e. She works a second job at the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office as a security officer. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 15 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 11 July 2011 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Company B, 787th Military Police Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, MO f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 25 May 2010/8 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 1 month, 17 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 5 months, 7 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: ARNG, 100205-100524, NA k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: None m. GT Score: 103 n. Education: Some College o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: None r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: Yes SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 5 February 2010, for a period of 8 years. She was 21 years old at the time of entry and had some college. Her record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement. She completed 1 year, 1 month, and 17 days of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was in basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 13 May 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. Specifically for: a. apprehended for shoplifting from the Fort Leonard Wood Post Exchange on 8 April 2011. b. fraternizing with another initial entry training (IET) Soldier. c. receiving two CG Article 15s. d. displaying discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personnel conduct. 2. Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 16 May 2011, the applicant waived her right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived her right to an administrative separation board, 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 14 June 2011, the applicant signed a second election of rights form. She voluntarily waived consideration of her case to be heard by an administration separation board, requested to consult with counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected to submit a statement on her own behalf. In her rebuttal statement, the applicant apologized for the several acts of misconduct she had been accused of and punished for. She admitted she was guilty of all the misconduct. She stated she was disappointed in herself once she found out she would have to go through a MEB for her hip injury. She contended she had no negative remarks about any of her cadre members and noted they tried to instill discipline in her. She thanked her company leadership and cadre for never giving up on her. 5. On 30 June 2011, after considering the results of the applicant’s MEB, the separation authority approved the administrative separation to continue in lieu of physical disability processing, waived further rehabilitation efforts, and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 6. The applicant was separated on 11 July 2011, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA, and an RE code of 3. She was released from active duty for training (ADT) and discharged from the Reserve of the Army and returned to the ARNG. 7. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Two supporting statements from SFC H and SSG W, who served as the applicant’s drill sergeants. They stated, in effect, that the applicant had the ability to be a good Soldier; however, with her hip injury and the slow process of getting her paperwork completed, she became frustrated and started to act out. They stated they believed she deserved the best discharge possible in order to carry on with her life. 2. A memorandum, dated 19 May 2011, detailing the applicant’s behavior. In addition, it noted the applicant received a CG Article 15 for violating Article 92, fraternization. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-2 and an oral reprimand. 3. A memorandum, dated 12 April 2011, reflects the applicant stated she would not overcome her deficiencies and waived her opportunity to do so when being counseled formally on the Chapter 14 discharge. 4. A memorandum, dated 12 April 2011, reflects the applicant was recommended for a rehabilitative transfer waiver and separation for violating Article 121 of the UCMJ. 5. Seven counseling statements, dated between 2 June 2010 and 14 April 2011, for use of the battle buddy system, talking in formation, failure to obey an order x 3 (110226, 110228, and 110413), recommendation for MEB x 2 (110303 and 110321), referral to RCLNCO for Chapter 14 processing, shoplifting, larceny, wrongful appropriation, failure to inculcate the Army Values, fraternization, lack of discipline, and disregard for the Army Values-Duty and Respect. 6. Article 15, dated 10 May 2011, for shoplifting on 8 April 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1 and forfeiture of $342 pay (CG). EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 28 August 2013, a self-authored statement addressing her contentions, an unofficial transcript from Argosy University, 15 letters of support, which included two from her discharge packet, a certificate reflecting her as associate of the month for October 2012, her Bachelor’s Degree certificate, a letter from the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department, and a records check of the applicant’s background. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states she has not been in any trouble since her discharge, she works two jobs, earned a Bachelor’s Degree and is currently enrolled in school to complete her Master’s Degree. 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 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 of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by two CG Article 15s and seven 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 she was ridiculed and treated unfairly by her cadre while in a hold-over status. However, in her rebuttal statement to the Chapter 14-12 separation, she stated the cadre was very supportive of her during the process and had tried to instill discipline in her but she failed to do what was required of her as a Soldier. 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 character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with her overall service record. 5. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge will allow her to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 6. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in her case. 7. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. BOARD DETERMINATION AND DIRECTED ACTION After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony, and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (applicant received an uncharacterized discharge a one year) and the applicant’s testimony 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: Personal Appearance Date: 28 July 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: No DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: 1. The applicant submitted the following additional documents: a. Four letters of personal reference – 4 pages b. Personal statement (Revised) – 4 pages 2. In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional documents and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. 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) AR20140008316 Page 7 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1