IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 September 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140012285 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action 1. After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony, and notwithstanding the examiner’s Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the circumstances surrounding her discharge (i.e., conduct of the urinalysis test, no UCMJ action, court-martial, or OER to document the derogatory information and the conduct of the BOI), mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. 2. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable, and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. 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 her discharge from under other than honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to include the reentry eligibility (RE) code. 2. The applicant states, in effect through counsel, her discharge was improper and inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident discrediting over nineteen years of faithful and honorable service. She believes the results of her administrative separation board was unduly harsh, the board contained many legal and procedural errors that prejudiced her case; she did not receive a fair and impartial hearing. She requests reinstatement in the Reserve to complete the required time to retire. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 14 July 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 1 December 2010 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Moral/Professional Dereliction, AR 135-175 Chapter 2, paragraph 2-11(f) & (o), NA/the BOI indicated the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 12(f) &(o); however, the regulation in effect at the time of discharge list the reason for discharge as annotated above. e. Unit of assignment: Detachment 2, 1984th US Army Reserve Hospital, Honolulu, HI f. Current Entry Date/Term: 9 August 2005/USAR, Indef g. Current Term Net Active Service: 5 years, 3 months, 23 days h. Total Service: 18 years, 6 months, 11 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: USAR (740606-750131)/NA RA (750201-771129)/HD RA (771130-801129)/HD (Break in Service) RA (810506-830602)/HD (Break in Service) USAR/Officer in Reserve (001214-040808)/NA OAD (040809-050808)/HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: O-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 73A, Social Work Officer m. GT Score: NA n. Education: Master Degree o. Overseas Service: Hawaii p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AGCM, GWOTSM, AFRM-W/”M” DEV, ASR, OSR r. Administrative Separation Board: Yes s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: No u. Prior Board Review: Yes SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the US Army Reserve delayed entry program on 6 June 1974, and was discharged on 31 January 1975. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 February 1975, the period of service was not in the file. She was 18 years old at the time and a high school graduate. She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91C10, Behavioral Science Specialist. She was discharged on 29 November 1977, with an honorable discharge. She reenlisted on 30 November 1977; the period of service was not in the file. She was 21 years old at the time. She was discharged on 29 November 1980, with an honorable discharge. She had a break in service. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 May 1981, the period of service was not in the file. She was 24 years old at the time. She was discharged on 2 June 1983, with an honorable discharge. She had a break in service. On 14 December 2000, she was appointed an officer in the Reserve as a 1LT/social worker and she was 44 years old at the time with a master degree. She was ordered to active duty on 9 August 2004, and completed the period of service and received an honorable discharge on 8 August 2005. She was reassigned to her Reserve unit. Her service record does not reflect any combat service during the term of service under review; she earned several awards including an ARCOM and an AGCM; she achieved the rank of CPT/O-3. She was serving in Hawaii when her separation action was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s record of service is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the US Army Reserve. However, the applicant provided pertinent discharge documents for consideration. 2. On 14 August 2008, the applicant was notified she tested positive for THC (080803). 3. On 2 May 2009, the Administrative Separation Board convened. The applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant be discharged with issuance of a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions, the discharge was to be suspended for 12 months on the condition the applicant would submit to a monthly urinalysis/breathalyzer and would not act unbecoming as an officer in anyway. 4. On 14 July 2009, the Commander, Headquarters, 9th Mission Support Command, Honolulu, HI, reviewed the BOI proceedings and matters submitted by the applicant; recommended her separation from the US Army Reserve, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions, the separation be suspended for a period of 12 months with the suspension contingent upon the applicant submitting to involuntary urinalysis exams and alcohol breathalyzer tests every month and meeting the appropriate standards of conduct and duty performance. 5. On 30 November 2009, the Commander, Headquarters, 8th Theater Sustainment Command, Fort Shafter, HI, recommended the applicant’s elimination be approved and her characterization of service be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. 6. On 3 November 2010, DA HQS, US Army Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, KY, Orders number D-11-018981, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 1 December 2010, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 7. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences, time lost or actions under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. The applicant received six successful OERs covering the periods from 25 June 2005 through 16 June 2010. 2. A DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 30 June 2007, indicating the applicant received an achieved course standards rating. 3. A State of Hawaii license, dated 25 January 2008, indicating the applicant was a licensed social worker. 4. Orders Number 220-0017, dated 8 August 2005, indicating the applicant was released from active duty. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, self-authored statement, list of enclosures from prior case number AR20120013191 (eight pages), attorney’s brief (24 pages), memorandum, notification of positive drug test (three pages), Board of Officers Inquiry (BOI, (30 pages), AR20120011391 Case Report Directive (four pages), chronological statement of retirement points, four pages of photo copies, e-mail traffic (two pages), numerous character statements, numerous OERs, excerpt, Title 10 Armed forces pages 928 and paragraph 1553, Department of Defense Instructions (DODI 1332.30), dated 25 November 2013 (three pages), excerpts of law documents (nine pages), Army Regulation 15-6 (seven pages), Army Regulation 135-175 (nine pages), Army Regulation 600-85 (16 pages), additional documents, four DD Forms 214, IWS assignments and orders (one page), IWS personnel actions (four pages), promotion worksheet with associated documents (four pages), and other documents from the applicant’s OMPF, which included several orders, additional duty appointments, AERS, certificates, awards, her oath of office, and three affidavits (ten pages). POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any information with the application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation 135-175 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of officers from the US Army Reserve (USAR), except for officers serving on active duty or active duty training exceeding 90 days. Chapters 2 and 3 provide the basis for involuntary separation of USAR officers. Specific categories include substandard performance of duty, moral or professional dereliction, in the interest of national security, as a result of trial by court martial, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without proper authority from unit training. 2. 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. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge and a change to the narrative reason was carefully considered. 2. After examining the applicant’s available record of service, the documents and issues submitted with the application, there are several mitigating factors to merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's discharge to general, under honorable conditions for the following reasons: a. Length and quality of service: The applicant served 5 years, 3 months and 23 days during the term of service under review. The applicant completed 18 years, 6 months, 11 days of overall service, thus the preponderance of her service was honorable. b. The record confirms the applicant received several awards, specifically an ARCOM, AAM, and an AFRM-W/”M” DEV. 3. This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the applicant’s faithful and honorable service, as well as the record of misconduct. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service is too harsh, and as a result, it is inequitable and warrants partial relief. 4. 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 Army Reserve officers. It brought discredit on the Army Reserve and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By her moral or professional dereliction and conduct unbecoming an officer, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable discharge. 5. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that her service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance. 6. The applicant requested a change to the narrative reason for separation to include the reentry eligibility code. The narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives. It identifies the appropriate narrative reason for officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-175, Chapter 2, paragraph 2-11, as moral or professional dereliction. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support her request to change the reason for her discharge. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant provided any evidence, to support the request that the reason for her discharge was improper or inequitable. Further, in regards to her request to change the RE code, this issues does not fall within the purview of this Board. 7. The applicant contends her discharge was improper and inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident discrediting over nineteen years of faithful and honorable service. Although an isolated incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of officers 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 of service. The applicant's isolated incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 8. Further, the chronological statement of retirement points shows the applicant completed 18 years, 6 months, 11 days of total service and not 19 years of service as the applicant indicated. 9. The applicant further contends she believes the results of her administrative separation board was unduly harsh and the board contained many legal and procedural errors that prejudiced her case; she did not receive a fair and impartial hearing. 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 contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that her BOI was not conducted per regulatory guidance and that she did not receive due process. 10. The applicant requests reinstatement in the Reserve to complete the required time to retire. The Army Discharge Review Board is not empowered to reinstate a former service member to military duty. The Board may only change the characterization of service or the reason for discharge. If an applicant believes there is an error or injustice in her discharge, she may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, using a DD Form 149, which can be obtained online or from a Veterans Service Organization. 11. It is the applicant’s responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the complete facts, circumstances, and reason underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record. 12. In view of the foregoing, the characterization of the discharge is too harsh and as a result, it is inequitable. The analyst recommends the Board grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. Board Determination and Directed Action 1. After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony, and notwithstanding the examiner’s Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the circumstances surrounding her discharge (i.e., conduct of the urinalysis test, no UCMJ action, court-martial, or OER to document the derogatory information and the conduct of the BOI mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. 2. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable, and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Personal Appearance Date: 22 September 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify: Yes Counsel: Yes Witness/Observer: None Board Vote: Character Change: 4 No Change: 1 Reason Change: 4 No Change: 1 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new Discharge Order: Yes Change Characterization to: Honorable Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority Change Authority for Separation: NA Change RE Code to: NA Grade Restoration to: NA Other: To: ARBA Promulgation Team, Arlington, VA 25 September 2014 The Army Discharge Review Board, under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant named in page 1, directs the ARBA Promulgation Team, Arlington, VA, to issue a new discharge order to the applicant which reflects the following directed changes: [ x ] Change characterization of discharge to Honorable [ x ] Narrative Reason to Secretarial Authority 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) AR20140012285 Page 8 of 8 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1