IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 December 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140009559 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge to be 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 to change the narrative reason for her discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she had no pattern of misconduct; however, at the time of her discharge she had a medical condition, adjustment disorder, which interfered with her duties. The medical condition was documented for several months as she reached out for assistance several months prior to and after her discharge. Her command did not take the appropriate action or consider her condition to be serious—she never received the appropriate medical or psychiatric care that she needed which may have allowed her to remain in the service. Her medical confidentiality was also disclosed without her permission in a hostile way, and the commander took punitive actions against her. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 2 June 2014 b. Discharge Received: Honorable c. Date of Discharge: 21 July 2000 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Med Co, US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, MD f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 10 November 1998, 6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 8 months, 12 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 8 months, 12 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 91K10, Medical Laboratory Specialist m. GT Score: 120 n. Education: Bachelor of Science o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: Yes SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 November 1998, for a period of 6 years. She was 25 years old at the time of entry and had a bachelor of science degree. She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty 91K10, Medical Laboratory Specialist. Her record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. She completed 1 year, 8 months, and 12 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 13 July 2000, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct, specifically for the following incidents: a. failing to be at her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; b. disobeying her company commander's order not to leave the limits of Fort Detrick because her pass privileges had been revoked; and c. refusing and continuing to refuse to perform her appointed laboratory and administrative duties. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of her rights. 3. On 13 July 2000, the applicant waived her right to consult with legal counsel, indicated she understood the impact of the discharge action and did not to submit a statement on her 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 14 July 2000, 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 21 July 2000, with an honorable characterization of service under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a 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. Memorandum for the company commander, dated 21 June 2000, subject: summary of counseling of [the applicant], was rendered by a laboratory supervisor is self-explanatory. 2. Article 15, dated 19 June 2000, for disobeying a superior commissioned officer (000521). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-3 and seven days of extra duty (CG). 3. Ten negative counseling statements, dated between 14 December 1999 and 21 June 2000, for failing to be at her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time; refusing to perform her assigned duties; receiving an Article 15; expressing a desire to be discharged because the military is not her way of life; being at a psychological point that she cannot and will not perform her assigned duties; the appropriate action of reporting to the health clinic when ill; reporting to duty in the wrong uniform; expectations following her inpatient absence; violating an order to remain within the limits of Fort Detrick until further notice; not communicating with her squad leader to discuss issues; being aware of Army/medical policies on physical fitness and profiles; and the importance of discussing her medical conditions with her doctor for proper treatment. 4. Memorandum for Record, dated 24 May 2000, subject: poor performance by the applicant, rendered by Chief of Department of Cell and Host, is self-explanatory. 5. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 May 2000, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. The report further indicated: a. The applicant met the retention standards of AR 40-501, and that there was no psychiatric disease or defect which warranted disposition through medical channels. b. The applicant is mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and has the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings. c. The applicant’s condition and problems were not, in the opinion of the examiner, amenable to hospitalization, treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, training, or reclassification to another type of duty within the military, and that it was unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate or develop her into a satisfactory member of the military would be successful. d. The examiner, a psychiatrist, recommended an administrative separation under paragraph 5-13, AR 635-200. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided her medical records, dated between 4 January 2000 and 8 June 2000; congressional correspondence, dated between 26 July 2000 and 27 September 2000; three certificates of achievement, dated 11 March, 13 May, and 14 October 1999; and doctor’s letter, dated 12 November 2014. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant provided none. 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, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. 5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned a SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned a RE Code of 3. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request to change the narrative reason for her discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, her military records, and the documents and issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to change the narrative reason for 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 of her service which would merit a change to the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15 action for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and numerous 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 narrative reason for the discharge should be changed because of her medical condition. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200 with an honorable characterization of discharge (changed due to a previous Board during a records review), although the separation authority directed a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is "JKA." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 5. Further, the applicant contends she had no pattern of misconduct and that she should have been medically discharged; however, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct, and in her case, a pattern of misconduct. 6. The applicant contends that despite reaching out for assistance, her command did not take the appropriate action and instead, discharged her. However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting herself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. 7. The applicant contends she never received the appropriate medical or psychiatric care she needed, and that her medical confidentiality was disclosed without her permission. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that she may have been unjustly discriminated. In fact, the applicant’s Article 15 action and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and sufficient evidence has been provided with the request to change the narrative reason for her discharge. 8. 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. Accordingly, 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 having been favorably considered by a previous Board and changed to an honorable discharge, being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief in changing the narrative reason for her discharge. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Personal Appearance Date: 8 December 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes Counsel: None DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: 1. The applicant submitted the following additional documents: Post service career documents 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: NA No Change: NA 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: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change 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) AR20140009559 Page 7 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1