Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2012/02/03 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states: "I would like an upgrade from an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge to an Honorable discharge so that I may receive the medical care I need to get back on my feet, my GIBILL benefits that I invested into, the Primary Specialty/Military Education to be updated to MOS Qualified as a 91C (Utilities Equipment Repairer), so that I may receive my 608 and 609 certification cards that I had earned while my stay at Fort Lee, the reentry code to be changed so that when and if I chose to reenter the military I will be listed as deployable, and the description and/or reason as to my discharge from the United States Army to be changed." II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 110727 Discharge Received: Date: 110822 Chapter: 5-17 AR: 635-200 Reason: Condition, Not a Disability RE: SPD: JFV Unit/Location: B Co, 16th Ord Bn, Fort Lee, VA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 110324, disrespectful in language and deportment toward a noncommissioned officer (110317) and disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer and a noncommissioned officer (110317); reduction to E1; forfeiture of $342.00 pay ($180.00 suspended); extra duty for 14 days; restriction for 14 days; and oral reprimand, (CG). 110405, the suspension of punishment of forfeiture of $180.00 was vacated for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer (110330) by using her cell phone during POI hours. Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 23 Current ENL Date: 100824 Current ENL Term: 03 Years 22 Weeks Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 11 Mos, 29 Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 02 Mos, 25 Days ????? Previous Discharges: ARNG-100528-100823/HD Highest Grade: E2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 106 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 27 July 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, AR 635-200, by reason of physical condition, not a disability for being diagnosed by competent medical authority with a depressive disorder NOS and was determined that her conditions rendered her non-depolyable. Her psychiatric conditions were of such severity as to preclude her of performing further useful military service and her separation was in the best interest of the applicant and the Army. The unit commander stated that for the purpose of consideration of her characterization of service, the following reasons would be considered: she was counseled for failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (110215); counseled for failing to obey a lawful written order by using her cell phone during POI hours (110331) and was counseled about using her medical injury or illness to avoid duty despite that she had been previously warned about adding to the restrictions and limitations of her medical profile (110331). Therefore the commander recommended the applicant receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 28 July 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Service. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an honorable discharge. On 16 August 2011, the separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-17 specifically provides that a Soldier may be separated for other physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability under Army Regulation 635-40, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty. The regulation requires that the condition interferes with the Soldiers’ ability to perform duty, and requires that the diagnosis be so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired. Army Regulation 635-200 states that a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, under honorable conditions, or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status. A general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally inappropriate for individuals separated under the provisions of Chapter 5-17 unless properly notified of the specific factors in the service that warrant such characterization. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records for the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents submitted with the application, the analyst recommends that relief be denied in this case. A mental status evaluation by competent medical authority diagnosed the applicant with a depressive disorder. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation under provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, by reason of other designated physical or mental condition not amounting to a disability, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge and informed the applicant as to the specific factors in her service record that would warrant such a characterization. The analyst was satisfied that all the requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The analyst acknowledges the applicant’s in-service accomplishments and considered the quality of her service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements, and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. Furthermore, the analyst concluded that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 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 his issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and she has not provided any documentation or further evidence in support of her request for an upgrade of her discharge. The analyst noted the applicant's issue of changing the narrative reason for her separation and reentry eligibility (RE) code. However, the narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 5, Paragraph 5-17, AR 635-200. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Condition, Not a Disability," and the separation code is "JFV." 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 entered 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. Further, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry (RE) codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. The analyst found no bases upon which to recommend a change to the applicant’s rentry code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. The analyst noted the applicant's issue about her desire to use the benefits of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The analyst also noted the applicant's issue about the updating of her MOS Qualification; however, the correction the applicant requests to be made to her record, does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), utilizing a DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the characterization of service and reason for discharge to include the RE code were all proper and equitable, and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 23 July 2012 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: Yes Witnesses/Observers: Applicant's mother and a friend. Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, Self-Authored Statement (Enlisted Record Brief, IADT Orders, dated 27 July 2010, Orders, dated 6 October 2010, Basic Combat Training Completion Certificate, Class 91C10 (005-11) Technical Training MOSQ, Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard (3), Documents From Discharge Packet (22 pages). The applicant submitted 368 pages of additional documents in support of her case; too include; rewards/character references (68 pages) and medical documents (300+ pages). VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted to deny relief. IX. Board Decision Board Vote: Character - Change 4 No change 1 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) X. Board Action Directed Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature Approval Authority: ARCHIE L. DAVIS III Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board BONITA E. TROTMAN Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army Secretary Recorder ??? Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court Martial BCD Bad Conduct Discharge GD General Discharge NIF Not in the file SPCM Special Court Martial CG Company Grade Article 15 HD Honorable Discharge OAD Ordered to Active Duty UNC Uncharacterized Discharge DD Dishonorable Discharge HS High School Graduate OMPF Official Military Personnel File UOTH Under Other Than Honorable FG Field Grade Article 15 IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE Reentry Code Conditions ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20120003149 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 4 pages