IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 January 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140017904 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 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 discharge from under other than honorable conditions to general, under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she was being physically abused by her ex-husband during her enlistment; she informed her chain of command this was happening and no one seemed to care. The answer to her problems wasn’t turning to drugs, but her commander and first sergeant did nothing to help her; and if she had the right support from her chain of command, these acts of misconduct would have never occurred. She has not been in any trouble since leaving the Army. She does not want a poor decision from the past to hinder her from having a better future. She will be evaluated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to symptoms of depression and anxiety. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 9 October 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 18 February 2004 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14 Paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 368th Cargo Transfer Company, 11th Transportation Battalion, Fort Story, VA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 6 April 2001, 3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 10 months, 9 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 10 months, 9 days i. Time Lost: 4 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 88H10, Cargo Specialist m. GT Score: 93 n. Education: GED Certificate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: No t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 April 2001, for a period of 3 years. She was 21 years old at the time of entry with a GED Certificate. She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 88H10, Cargo Specialist. The record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements. She was serving at Fort Story, VA, when her discharge was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 8 December 2003, 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 offenses: a. testing positive for cocaine x 2 (020714 and 031112), b. failing to obey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer x 2 (021114 and 030326), c. during a search of her quarters THC residue was found, and she had unauthorized occupants living in her government quarters (030925), and d. being AWOL from (031117 to 031121). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of her rights. 3. On 8 December 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions and did not submit a statement on her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate and senior commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 20 January 2004, the separation approving authority referred the applicant’s case to the standing Administrative Separation Board. 4. On 29 January 2004, the applicant again consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and unconditionally waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement on her own behalf. 5. On 30 January 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 6. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 18 February 2004, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and a RE code of 3. 7. The applicant’s record of service indicates 4 days of time lost for being AWOL from 17 November 2003 until 20 November 2003; she returned to the unit. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. An Article dated, 18 September 2002, for wrongfully using cocaine between (020713-020714); the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, reduction in excess of E-2 (suspended), a forfeiture of $500 pay for two months (suspended), and extra duty for 45 days (FG). 2. On 20 December 2002, the suspension of punishment of a reduction to E-1 and a forfeiture of $500 pay for two months; was vacated for the new offense of willfully disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (SGT T, 021114). 3. The record contains two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 17 November 2003 and 21 November 2003, showing the applicant’s present for duty and AWOL dates. 4. She received four negative counseling statements, dated between 14 November 2002 and 30 September 2003 for failing to obey a lawful order or a regulation, making a false statement, violating housing directives, and initiation of separation action. 5. The record contains a positive urinalysis report coded IU (Inspection Unit), dated 12 November 2003, for cocaine. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, and a DD Form 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant stated on her application, she obtained two degrees and graduated as a member of the National Honor Society Student (Beta Chi). She is also enrolled in college working to obtain a diploma in massage therapy. 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, and the issues and documents submitted with her 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 of her service below that meriting a general, under honorable conditions or a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15, a suspension of punishment, two DA Forms 4187, four negative counseling statements and a positive urinalysis report. 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 being physically abused by her ex-husband during her enlistment; she informed her chain of command of what was happening and no one seemed to care. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that she sought relief through her command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other resources available to all Soldiers. 5. The applicant further contends the answer to her problems wasn’t turning to drugs, but her commander and first sergeant did nothing to help her; and if she had the right support from her chain of command, these acts of misconduct would have never occurred. She had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. 6. Further, the rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what she believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. 7. Also, 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. 8. Additionally, the applicant contends she has not been in any trouble since leaving the Army. The applicant is to be commended for her effort. This contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. 9. Moreover, the applicant contends she does not want a poor decision from the past to hinder her from having a better future. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 10. Furthermore, the applicant contends she will be tested for PTSD due to symptoms of depression and anxiety. The service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis, anxiety or depression and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 10. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 11. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Personal Appearance Date: 26 January 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify: Yes Counsel: Yes Witnesses/Observers: None DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: 1. The applicant submitted no additional documents. 2. The applicant presented no additional contentions. In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. Board Vote: Character Change: 1 No Change: 4 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) AR20140017904 Page 7 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1