IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 June 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140007746 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she had trouble readjusting back to regular civilian/garrison life following her return from deployment. The applicant states, she sought out ways to improve her mental status by seeing behavioral doctors and was later diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. The applicant contends, she was in the process of being medically discharged for an issue with low blood volume which caused her to faint quite often; however, the process stopped in January 2013. The applicant states, she fainted while driving causing an accident and later being charged with a DUI for having alcohol in her system. The applicant states, upgrading her discharge will make a huge impact on her life in so many ways. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 28 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 6 June 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: C Company, 4th Medical Brigade, Fort Carson, CO f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 14 November 2012/NIF g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 months, 22 days h. Total Service: 5 years, 5 months, 23 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: USAR, 071214-100202, HD RA 100203-121113, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 6810, Health Care Specialist m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (100910-110701) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-2, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: NIF t. Counseling Statements: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve on 14 December 2007, for a period of 8 years and reported for active duty on 3 February 2010, for 4 years. She was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She reenlisted on 13 November 2012. She served in Afghanistan; earned an ARCOM and two AAMs and completed a total of 5 years, 5 months, and 23 days of creditable military service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Fort Carson, Colorado. 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 authenticated by the applicant’s signature. 2. The DD Form 214 indicates on 6 June 2013, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, for misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKQ and a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 3. 3. 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 PFC/E-3 and the action that caused her reduction is not contained in the available service record. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant, reflects the applicant was separated from the Regular Army effective 6 June 2013. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 1. The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 9 April 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. 2. Self-authored statement, written by the applicant, states she had trouble readjusting back in to regular civilian/garrison life following her return from deployment. The applicant states, she sought out ways to improve her mental status by seeing behavioral doctors and was later diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. The applicant was prescribed medication for her anxiety disorder; however, was unable to take them due to her involvement with the substance abuse program. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states she is a part of the D.A.R.E. program at local high schools around her hometown, which focuses on the effects of drinking and driving. The applicant also states she is currently enrolled in school through the vocational rehabilitation program. 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. 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 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 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 AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c by reason of misconduct (serious offense), 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 contention about being diagnosed with an anxiety disorder was 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 available 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. The applicant contends she should have been medically discharged. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances that led to her discharge from the Army; however, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. 6. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 7. 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. 8. 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: 19 June 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) AR20140007746 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1