IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 20 October 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140001887 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant states, in effect, her discharge was the result of injuries and poor leadership. She states she was involved in an accident with a semi-truck on the way to work, which was in the line of duty. She states the accident caused her to be unable to perform her duties, participate in physical fitness training, or wake up on time. As a result, she contends she was consistently punished by the command, who decided she was disposable. She states she continues to suffer from pain as a result of the accident and events that followed. She contends she was forced to participate in PT against the orders of the doctors which resulted in an emotional breakdown. She states that SGT B and 1SG T were witnesses to SSG M’s abuse towards her and her comment that she would not get out on a medical discharge. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 24 January 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 26 July 2001 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Bravo Company, 224th Military Intelligence Battalion, Hunter Army Airfield, GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 27 August 1999/6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 11 months h. Total Service: 1 year, 11 months i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist m. GT Score: 108 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: Yes SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 August 1999, for a period of 6 years. She was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. Her record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement. She completed 1 year and 11 months of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 22 June 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct - a pattern of misconduct. Specifically for several violations of Article 86, failure to report, resulting in a trial by summary court-martial and a CG Article 15 for violation of Article 92, failure to obey a lawful order and violation of Article 91, disobeyed an NCO. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 25 June 2001, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, elected to submit a statement in her own behalf. As a note, the applicant’s rebuttal statement was not found in the record. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 13 July 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on 26 July 2001, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. MEDCOM Form 699-R (Mental Status Evaluation), dated 6 February 2001, reflects that applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. The applicant was hospitalized from 3 February to 6 February 2001 for a suicide attempt. 2. A memorandum, dated 6 February 2001, reflects the applicant was psychiatrically evaluated at the US Army Medical Department on 2 February 2001 until the date of the memorandum. The applicant’s admission was voluntary. She was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and conduct-occupational problem, narcissistic and antisocial personality traits, and dermatitis. 3. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 31 January 2001, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible to understand and participate in the administrative proceedings. 4. Four negative counseling statements, dated between 4 April 2001 and 31 May 2001, for failure to be at designated place of duty at appointed time x 4 (010404, 010406, 010412, and 010531), a lack of effort at PT, and failure to wear proper uniform. 5. Article 15, dated 17 November 2000, for failing to obey a regulation or policy, disobeying a order by an NCO, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 2 (001010 and 001016). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $263 pay for one month (suspended), and 14 days extra duty (CG). 6. DD Form 2329 (Record of Trial by Summary Court Martial), dated 23 May 2001, is incomplete but reflects the applicant participated in proceedings and was found guilty of three specifications of failing to go to her appointed place of duty (010322, 010404, and 010406). 7. DA Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 1 May 2001, reflects the applicant was charged with nine specifications of violating Article 86, failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (010129, 010227, 010314, 010320, 010321, 010322, 010323, 010404, and 010406), and two specifications of violating Article 91, disobeying an order (010220 and 010321). 8. DD Form 4430-R (DA Report of Results of Trial), dated 30 May 2001, reflects the applicant participated in a summary court-martial and was found guilty of six specifications of failing to go to her appointed place of duty (010129, 010314, 010320, 010322, 010404, and 010406). EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 17 January 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any in support of her application. 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. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, pattern of misconduct. 5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge and change to the narrative reason for separation was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, her military records, and the issues submitted with the 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 fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by a CG Article 15, a summary court-martial trial, and four negative counseling statements. 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’s request for a change to the narrative reason was carefully considered. However, Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 5. The applicant contends her discharge was the result of injuries and poor leadership. However, the applicant service record does not support the conclusion that while on active duty she suffered from a medical condition that would have rendered her unfit for further service at the time of her discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during her discharge processing that would have warranted her separation processing through medical channels. Further, before initiating discharge proceedings, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about her deficiencies which could lead to separation. The command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory Soldier. The evidence contained in the service record establishes the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies. As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service. 6. The applicant also contends she is entitled to an upgrade of her discharge because of mitigating circumstances. Specifically, she claims she was pushed to have an emotional breakdown. While the applicant may believe her stress at work was the underlying cause of her misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that she sought relief from stress through her command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers until after separation proceedings were initiated. Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct. 7. 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. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 9. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Personal Appearance Date: 20 October 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: No DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: 1. The applicant submitted no additional documents or issues. 2. 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: 0 No Change: 5 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: NA 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) AR20140001887 Page 7 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1