IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 4 February 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140003439 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge characterization to either honorable or general under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she was under a lot of stress and anxiety prior to her separation. She states, she was dealing with depression which resulted in her being put on medication that did not help her problems and made her not want to do anything. She states, she received a letter informing her that she had been reduced in rank and was being discharged with an under other than honorable characterization of service. She contends, she was having issues with two male Soldiers in her unit. In 2010 contacted the Army reserve center and found out the same two Soldiers lied on the paperwork which caused her to have a unfavorable reenlistment code. She states, had she known of the reassignment order she would have complied and reported to her new unit. She contends, her discharge keeps her from gaining employment in law enforcement. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 18 February 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 23 April 2007 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unsatisfactory Participation, AR 135-178, Chapter 13, NIF, NIF e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 89th Regional Readiness Command, Wichita, KS f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 5 May 2005/8 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 11 months, 19 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 11 months, 19 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: IADT, 050615-051025, NIF (Concurrent Service) k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 88H, Cargo Specialist m. GT Score: 101 n. Education: HS Letter o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: NIF s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the US Army Reserve on 5 May 2005, for a period of 8 years. She was 18 years old at the time of entry and had a high school letter. Her record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement. She completed 1 year, 11 months, 19 days of military service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving in Wichita, KS. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record shows that on 18 April 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 135-178, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, for missing a total of 10 unit training assemblies within a one year period and for failing to respond or comply with orders or correspondence and these attempts resulted in the applicant’s verbal or written refusal to comply with the orders or correspondence, unclaimed or otherwise. The applicant was given a 30 day suspense ending 18 May 2006. As a note, this document was not signed by the unit commander. 2. On 20 February 2007 the record reflects the applicant was again notified by the unit commander of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 135-178, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, for missing at least 10 training assemblies within a one year period. Her unit attempted to get a response or compliance with orders or correspondence and those attempts resulted in the applicant’s refusal to comply; certified mail with annual training orders being refused, unclaimed or undelivered, and failing to notify the chain of command of her change of address and reasonable attempts of contact have failed. The record is void of the date that the certified mail was sent to the applicant’s last known address advising of her rights. 3. The applicant’s election of rights is not contained in the available record. However, the unit commander indicated in the notification letter that he was suspending the separation action for 45 days, to allow the applicant with the opportunity to exercise her right to consult with legal counsel. 4. On 23 April 2007, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. She was reduced in rank to the grade of E-1. 5. The record contains documentation that shows the unit contacted the applicant on several occasions and she refused to come in, as instructed. 6. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Discharge Orders Number 07-113-00009, DA, Headquarters, 89th RRC, Wichita, KS, dated 23 April 2007. 2. Orders Number 07-095-00001, DA, Headquarters, 89th RRC, Wichita, KS, dated 5 April 2007, released the applicant from her current assignment and assigned her with duty in Belton, MO. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 11 February 2014, a counseling statement, dated 11 July 2006, a REDD Report, dated 1 November 2010, a printout, dated 7 August 2007, four letters of instruction, dated between 8 February 2006 and 14 December 2006, Reduction Orders Number 07-113-00007, dated 23 April 2007, Discharge Orders Number 07-113-00009, dated 23 April 2007, a notification letter, dated 20 February 2007, a undated and unsigned notification letter, a letter from the National Personnel Records Center, dated 18 December 2009, enlistment documents, Orders Number 5129014, dated 9 May 2005, and a DD 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any in support of her application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation 135-178 governs procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army Reserve. Chapter 13 provides in pertinent part, that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. Army Regulation 135-91 states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills acrue during a 1 year period and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in— the Soldier’s refusal to comply with orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification that the Soldier has failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. Discharge action may be taken when the Soldier cannot be located or is absent in the hands of civil authorities in accordance with the provisions of AR 135-91, paragraph 2-18, and Chapter 3, section IV, of AR 135–178. 2. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. 3. Possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general, under honorable conditions, under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. 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, the documents 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 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 her refusal to participate in unit drills, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge. 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 contentions about she was having trouble with two male Soldiers in her unit who lied on her paperwork resulting in an unfavorable reenlistment code; she was suffering from a lot of anxiety, stress and depression were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. 5. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record. 6. The applicant further contends she would have complied with her reassignment order had she known they existed. However, the notification letter shows the unit commander attempted to contact the applicant on several occasions, evidenced by the letters of instruction she provided with her application; the applicant failed to respond or comply with those orders. Further, 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. 7. The applicant states her discharge hinders her from obtaining employment in law enforcement and she has an unfavorable reenlistment code. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, at the time of discharge, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Army Regulation 601-280 stipulates that an under other than honorable conditions discharge constitutes a non-waivable disqualification, thus the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. 8. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case and an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate. 9. Therefore, based on the available evidence and the presumption of government regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 4 March 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA 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) AR20140003439 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1