IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 17 April 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140004836 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 a change to the narrative reason for her separation. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she allowed her emotions to get the best of her during the time leading up to her discharge. The applicant contends, she would have received an honorable discharge had she been given the opportunity to finish her enlistment. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 14 March 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 14 February 2014 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Headquarters and Headquarters Company 40th Expeditionary Signal Battalion, Fort Huachuca, AZ f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 25 January 2010 / 5 years, 30 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years, 20 days h. Total Service: 4 years, 20 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 25B10, IT Specialist m. GT Score: 104 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM r. Administrative Separation Board: N/A s. Performance Ratings: N/A t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 January 2010, for a period of 5 years and 30 weeks. She was 24 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She completed 4 years and 20 days of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 18 December 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, by reason pattern of misconduct. Specifically for the following offenses: a. failing to go to the appointed place of duty on divers occasions (120319, 120320, 120321, 120726, 121116, 130814, 130815, 130916, and 1311015), b. disrespectful in language and deportment towards a noncommissioned officer (121126), and c. treated with contempt and was disrespectful in deportment toward a noncommissioned officer (130925). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 20 December 2013, the applicant declined her right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and submitted a statement on her own behalf. The applicant’s statement accepted responsibility of her actions and requested the approving authority allow her to finish her current enlistment in order for her to receive benefits. 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 7 January 2014, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 14 February 2014, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for pattern of misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA, and a RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. An Article 15, dated 19 April 2012, failure to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty on three occasions (120319, 120320, and 120321). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $435.00 pay per month for one month (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty (CG). 2. An Article 15, dated 9 February 2013, failure to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty on two occasions (120726 and 121116), and was disrespectful in language and deportment toward a noncommissioned officer. The punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty (summarized). 3. An Article 15, dated 20 November 2013, failure to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty on three occasions (130814, 130815, and 130916), and did treat with contempt and was disrespectful in deportment toward a senior noncommissioned officer. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $758.00 pay (suspended), 45 days of extra duty and oral reprimand (FG). 4. Several counseling statements, dated between 17 June 2013, and 17 October 2013, for initial counseling, failure to be at her appointed place of duty, failure to report, failure to obey a direct order, insubordinate conduct/deportment towards a senior noncommissioned officer, safety briefing, and initiation of separation proceedings. 5. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 22 November 2013, reflects that the applicant had a clear and normal thought process, and was mentally responsible. 6. An MP Report, dated 4 June 2012, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for simple assault (off post). EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 28 February 2014, a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states she is stuck in Arizona, a single parent, and is ineligible to receive any benefits. 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. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for a change to the narrative reason for separation 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 a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by three Articles 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 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 contends she is entitled to a change to the narrative reason for discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to her misconduct. Specifically, she claims her emotions got the best of her which resulted in her discharge. While the applicant may believe her stress and emotions were 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. Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct. 5. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what she believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. 6. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 7. 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: Records Review Date: 17 April 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) AR20140004836 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1