IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 28 April 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20130013826 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the Analyst’s Discussion and Recommendation that follows, the Board determined the discharge is now inequitable. The Board found the circumstances surrounding her discharge (i.e., she was never assigned to a unit within 50 miles of her residence, never attended battle assemblies with the unit in New York due to being unaware she was required to attend drills, the evidence in her official records and the evidence she provided supports her claims), mitigated the discrediting entries in her service record. 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 her general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she was involuntary discharged without her knowledge or participation due to use of an outdated postal address by the Army. She never had the opportunity to be heard on any matter pertaining to her service or discharge. She should have been assigned to the APMC or a unit within 50 miles of her home, but was instead assigned to a unit in New York and was never informed of that fact. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 29 July 2013 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 4 July 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Moral/Professional Dereliction, AR 135-175 Chapter 2, paragraph 2-11, NA e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 8th Medical Brigade, Fort Wadsworth NY f. Current Entry Date/Term: 28 September 2009, 8 years g. Current Term Net Active Service: 2 years, 9 months, 7 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 9 months, 7 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: O-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 73B, Clinical Psychologist m. GT Score: NA n. Education: Doctorate Degree o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: None r. Administrative Separation Board: Yes s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the US Army Reserve on 28 September 2009, for a period of 8 years. She enlisted in the reserves as a captain/clinical psychologist and she was 44 years old at the time. Her service record does not reflect any personally earned awards or any combat service during the term of service under review. She was assigned to HHC, 8th Medical Brigade, Fort Wadsworth, NY when separation action was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record shows that on 3 April 2011, the applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the US Army Reserves under the provisions of Chapter 2, paragraphs 2-12i (1), (2), 3(d) and o, AR 135-175, by reason of moral or professional dereliction and conduct unbecoming an officer for the following offenses: a. failing (by intentional neglect or failure) to perform her assigned duties and participate satisfactorily in required Ready Reserve Training (AR 135-91, Chapter 6), by failing to report for various battle assemblies on 12-13 June 2010, 24-25 July 2010 and 18-19 September 2010. b. failing by (intentional neglect or failure) to reply to official correspondence on or about 22 June 2010, 8 July 2010 and 21 September 2010, she was mailed by first class US Mail, Letter of Instruction and she failed to reply to the official correspondence. c. intentionally failing to perform assigned duties, and failing to claim correspondence are all acts unbecoming an officer and are deemed moral or professional dereliction pursuant to AR 135-175. 2. The applicant was advised she could resign in lieu of involuntary separation, request transfer to the retired Reserve, if eligible, request appearance before a Board of Inquiry (BOI), submit a written statement in her behalf, or waive her rights. Her refusal to accept or respond to this notification within 30 days would result in board action proceedings in her absence. The senior commander recommended approval of the proposed action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 17 November 2011, the applicant was notified to appear before a BOI. On 29 November 2011, the Board convened without the applicant or her counsel being present. The board found the applicant failed to attend battle assemblies and failed to reply to official correspondence. The Board recommended the applicant be discharged from the US Army Reserve with an under honorable other than conditions discharge. 4. On 22 January 2012, the Commander, Headquarters, 3rd Medical Command (Deployment Support), Forest Park, GA, forwarded the findings and recommendations of the BOI to the Commanding General, US Army Reserve Command (USARC) for action and he recommended the applicant’s discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 5. On 4 June 2012, the Commanding General, USARC, approved the findings and recommendations of the BOI and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 6. The applicant was discharged from the US Army Reserve on 4 July 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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 a negative counseling statement, dated 3 November 2010 for failing to attend drills. 2. Memoranda, letter of instructions for unexcused absences, dated 22 June 2010, 28 July 2010, and 21 September 2010 for unexcused absences from drills. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, letter, United States Senate, self-authored statement (8 pages), e-mail traffic (35 pages), and the Chapter 2 discharge packet (74 pages). POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any 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. 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. 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. ANALYST’S 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. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, the documents and issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge or a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. The applicant requested a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 2-12, as moral or professional dereliction. The applicant bears the burden of the 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. 5. The applicant contends she was involuntary discharged without her knowledge or participation due to use of an outdated postal address by the Army. The record shows the unit commander attempted to contact the applicant on several occasions and mailed the discharge packet to her last known address via certified mail. Army Regulation 135-178, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier is subject to discharge for unsatisfactory participation when it is determined the Soldier is unqualified for further military service because the Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant as prescribed in Chapter 4, AR 135-91 and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in the Soldier’s refusal to comply with such orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification that the Soldier failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. 6. The applicant further contends she never had the opportunity to be heard on any matter pertaining to her service or discharge. The record also shows she refused to accept or respond to the show cause for retention notification within 30 days, which resulted in a BOI convening without the applicant or her counsel being present. 7. The applicant also contends she should have been assigned to the APMC or a unit within 50 miles of her home, but instead assigned to a unit in New York and was never informed of that fact. The record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. It appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 8. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 9. Therefore, the reason for discharge and characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the preceding Analyst’s Discussion and Recommendation, the Board determined the discharge is now inequitable. The Board found the circumstances surrounding her discharge (i.e., she was never assigned to a unit within 50 miles of her residence, never attended battle assemblies with the unit in New York due to being unaware she was required to attend drills, the evidence in her official records and the evidence she provided supports her claims), mitigated the discrediting entries in her service record. 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: Record Review Date: 28 April 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify: No Counsel: 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 DD Form 214: No Issue a new Discharge Order: Yes Change Characterization to: Honorable Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority Change Authority for Separation: AR 135-175, Ch (Not determined) Change RE Code to: NA 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) AR20130013826 Page 7 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1