Application Receipt Date: 060316 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that she regret seperating from the Army. Right now, I am missing the military life. When I was still enlisted, I know what consequences was going to happen when I did seperate. I completely take full responsilbilty for the actions that was taken apon me. My reason to have my Discharge Upgraded, I am a student here in San Antonio TX, that is planning to go back into the Army as an Officer by 2009. The state is paying for my school right now but would like to use my GI Bill for my bachelor degree. I sincerely regert for yourself to read a statement such as mine that will determine if I should have an Upgrade. I thank you for your time and appreciation. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 031223 Discharge Received: Date: 040206 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: 565th Quartermaster Company, Special Troops Battalion, Fort Hood, TX 76544 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 031008, failed to obey a lawful order issued by a CPT (030911), without authority, left her apppointed place of duty (030911), failed to go to her appointed place of duty(030916), and failed to obey a lawful order issued by CPT (030916), (Field Grade) 2nd Article 15, failed to go to her appointed place of duty x 2, (030425), (030801), (Summarized) The unit commander indicates in his specific reason for action recommended was that the soldier received a Field Grade Article 15 for wrongfully using cocaine. However the article 15 is not part of the available record. Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 820710 Current ENL Date: 000707 Current ENL Term: 5 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 3 Yrs, 7 Mos, 0 Days ????? Total Service: 3 Yrs, 7 Mos, 0 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 63B10 Light Wheel Vehicle Mech GT: 87 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Korea Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 17 December 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense (received a Field Grade Article 15 for repeatedly failing to report to her appointed place of duty and disobeying orders), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. She was advised of her rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 29 December 2003, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: 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 absence 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, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue she submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 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. By her misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 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. Furthermore, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the this Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 31 January 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: N/A Witnesses/Observers: N/A Exhibits Submitted: N/A VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change No change (Character) Change No change (Reason) (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Ron Williams, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: None RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 2 February 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060004360 Applicant Name: ______________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 6 pages