IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 6 May 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140008724 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. In addition, the applicant requests a change to the narrative reason for discharge based on her self-authored statement. 2. The applicant states, in effect, her discharge should be upgraded based on her failing the APFT and medical issues. She states, she failed the APFT twice however, her failures were overlooked and she was not counseled. She also contends she had medical issues and death in the family that was overlooked. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 15 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 24 September 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 90th Human Resources Company, Fort Stewart, GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 3 January 2013/4 years, 21 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 8 months, 22 days h. Total Service: 8 months, 22 days i. Time Lost: 7 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-1 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 42A10, Human Resources Specialist m. GT Score: 102 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 January 2013, for a period of 4 years and 21 weeks. She was 21 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. Her record is void of any significant awards of valor and achievement. She completed 8 months and 22 days of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Fort Stewart, GA. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 6 September 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. Specifically for being AWOL from 15 July 2013 through 21 July 2013 and failing to be at her appointed place of duty on 7 June 2013, 11 June 2013 and 23 July 2013. 2. Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of her rights. 3. On 9 September 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected to submit a statement in her own behalf (NIF). 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 11 September 2013, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on 24 September 2013, under the provisions of 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. 6. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. However, the commander’s report, dated 8 September 2013, reflects the applicant was AWOL during the period of 15 July 2013 through 21 July 2013. Her mode of return is unknown. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 17 July 2013 and 22 July 2013, reflects changes to the applicant’s duty status. 2. Several negative counseling statements, dated between 7 June 2013 and 21 August 2013, for missing formation, loss of common access card, recommendation for UCMJ action, being AWOL, failure to report, suspension of privileges, and recommendation for elimination from service. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 7 May 2014, a DD Form 214, a physical profile, dated 4 September 2013, a self-authored statement, a DA Form 269, dated 14 August 2013, and a letter of support, dated 3 December 2013. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct 5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. 2. 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. 3. 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 of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by several negative counseling statements and seven days of AWOL from her unit. 4. The applicant also request a change to the narrative reason for separation due to two failed APFT. However, 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 5. 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. 6. The applicant contends she had medical issues and death in her family that was overlooked. However, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support her statement that she had medical issues that rendered her unfit for further service at the time of discharge. The available record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during her discharge processing that would have warranted separation processing through medical channels. 7. Further, the applicant had many legitimate avenues available to seek relief for her family issues. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that she sought relief through her chain of command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center or other resources available to all Soldiers. 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: 6 May 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 Conditionslliams, ro ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140008724 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1