IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 22 April 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140005611 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 general, under honorable conditions discharge characterization to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she is making a request for upgrade of her characterization of service due to the importance and the impact of her current characterization on her life and family members. She states, she realizes the mistakes of her past and have grown from her past insubordination. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 28 March 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 22 January 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unsatisfactory Performance e. Unit of assignment: 396th Transportation Company, Fort Stewart, GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 4 November 2010/6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 2 months, 19 days h. Total Service: 4 years, 8 months, 10 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 080513-080527, NA RA, 080528-101103, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist m. GT Score: 89 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (100501-101227) q. Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, NATO MDL r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 May 2008, for a period of 3 years and 19 weeks. She was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She reenlisted on 4 November 2010, for a period of six years and served in Afghanistan. The applicant earned an AAM. She completed 4 years, 8 months, 10 days of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving in Fort Stewart, GA. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 18 December 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. Specifically for avoiding deployment to Afghanistan on 6 June 2012, by having her physical profile adjusted to reflect she was non-deployable, failing to report on 23 April 2012, 2 March 2012, and 28 February 2012, and disobeying a direct order from a NCO on 23 April 2012. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 18 December 2012, the applicant waived her right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected to submit a statement in her own behalf. The statement is not found in the available record. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. 4. On 7 January 2013, 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 22 January 2013, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JHJ, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record contains no evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Article 15, dated 14 August 2012, for the purpose of avoiding deployment to Afghanistan by having her physical profile adjusted to reflect she was non-deployable. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-2 and 45 days of extra duty (suspended) (FG). The applicant appealed the imposed punishment and on 17 August 2012, her appeal was denied. 2. Several negative counseling statements, dated between 28 February 2012 and 11 October 2012, for initial and performance counseling, failure to report, failure to obey an order or regulation, missing formation, violation of counseling plan of action, and Chapter 13 separation counseling. 3. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 14 November 2012, reflects the applicant had no obvious impairments, could understand the difference between right and wrong, and had a diagnosis for other substance related disorder not otherwise specified per the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP). The applicant had a negative screening for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and mild Traumatic Brain Injury. 4. Applicant self-authored letter, dated 18 December 2012, reflects she self-referred to ASAP. 5. DA Form 8003 (ASAP Enrollment Form), dated 20 June 2012 reflects the applicant was enrolled in ASAP however, the type of referral is not indicated. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 26 March 2014, a DD Form 214, seven character statements, an appreciation letter, dated 28 August 2009, a DA Form 638 and AAM Certificate, five certificates of training, and a certificate of achievement. 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. 2. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. 3. 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 "JHJ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. 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 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. By the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable characterization of service. 3. The applicant also requests a change in the reason for the discharge. 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 "JHJ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 4. 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. 5. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 6. 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: 22 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) AR20140005611 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1