IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 15 April 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140007281 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 to upgrade the characterization of her service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she performed above standard until she started having trouble with her pes planus and her APFT went drastically down. Her retention would not have been an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 21 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 23 August 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unsatisfactory Performance, AR 635-200, Chapter 13, JHJ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 142nd MP Co, 94th MP Bn, 501st Sustainment Bde, Yongsan, Korea f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 1 February 2010, 5 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 6 months, 23 days (per DD Form 215) h. Total Service: 2 years, 6 months, 23 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 31B10, Military Police m. GT Score: 103 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Korea p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM; GWOTSM; KDSM; ASR; OSR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 February 2010, for a period of 5 years. She was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31B10, Military Police. She served in Korea. Her record documents no other acts of valor or significant achievement. She completed 2 years, 6 months, and 23 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was digitally authenticated by the applicant’s signature and the separation authority’s decision memorandum. 2. On 6 July 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant was not transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group. 3. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 23 August 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JHJ and a reentry (RE) code of 3. 4. The applicant’s available record does not show any recorded actions under the UCMJ, unauthorized absences or time lost. However, she was separated as a PVT/E-1 and the action that caused her reduction on 30 November 2010, is not contained in the service record. 5. On 12 July 2012, HQDA, Installation Management Command-Pacific, Yongsan Transition Center, Korea, Orders Number 194-0001, discharged the applicant from the Army, effective 23 August 2012. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Five negative counseling statements, dated between 8 November 2011 and 19 January 2012, for failing her record APFT; being flagged; being enrolled in the remedial/special population PT program; and not being in compliance with the Army weight and body fat standards and its effects. 2. Discharge Orders described at the preceding paragraph 5. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided DD Form 214 for service under current review and a notarized character reference statement. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant provided none. 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. 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, and the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army. However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was digitally authenticated by the applicant's signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. 3. The DD Form 214 also indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 4. The applicant's contentions were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient 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. Further, the person providing the character reference statement that she provided was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant’s chain of command. As such, the statement does not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 5. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the complete discharge packet with the unit commander’s notification to her and her response with election of rights) 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. Therefore, based on the available evidence and the government presumption of 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: 15 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) AR20140007281 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1