IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 8 May 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140008507 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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’s self-authored statement, in pertinent part and in effect, provides that the basis for an upgrade is due to her commendable performance. She endured a marital discord that resulted in divorce in September 2012. She reacted poorly to the stress from the disputes. The treatment she received at a hospital did not sufficiently address her psychological responses to stress. Since her discharge, she satisfactorily completed a six-month rehabilitative treatment for alcohol misuse and learned to manage stress. She also contributes to her family, community, and job as a healthy and productive civilian. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 12 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 3 January 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 558th MP Co, Schofield Barracks, HI f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 8 November 2010, 5 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 1 month, 26 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 1 month, 26 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 31B10, Military Police m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Hawaii p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes, applicant’s submitted evidence u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 November 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. Her record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. She completed 2 years, 1 month, and 26 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. 2. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 3 January 2013, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKA and a reentry (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 action that may have caused any reduction in grade is not contained in the service record. 4. On 18 December 2012, HQDA, USAG-Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, HI, Orders Number 353-0007, discharged the applicant from the Army, effective 3 January 2013. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Discharge Orders described at the preceding paragraph 4. 2. There is a counseling statement dated 30 August 2012, which indicates the applicant received an Article 15 for breaking her no contact order; however, the Article 15 is not in the available record. 3. There are several negative counseling statements dated between 16 October 2011 through 30 August 2012, for being late for shift, lack of motivation, attempting to commit suicide, violating her no contact order and receiving an Article 15 for breaking her no contact order. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a self-authored statement; certificate of appreciation, dated 13 June 2012; counseling statement, dated 16 October 2011, 30 March 2012 (EOM), 1 May 2012 (EOM), 7 July 2012 (EOM), 13 July 2012, 20 July 2012, 30 August 2012 (EOM); picture depicting coin of excellence; civilian court order for entry of default of defendant, dated 10 September 2012; certificate of achievement, dated 23 September 2013; character reference letter, dated 4 February 2013; applicant’s resume; letter, dated 20 February 2014, rendered on behalf of the applicant regarding her successful completion of her outpatient treatment; character reference letter, dated 25 February 2014; and DD Form 214 for service under current review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant provided a detailed account of her accomplishments and stated, in effect, since her discharge she satisfactorily completed a six-month rehabilitative treatment program for alcohol misuse and learned to manage stress. She also contributes to her family, community, and job as a healthy and productive civilian. 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 available 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 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b by reason of a pattern of misconduct, 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 at this time. 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 sufficient evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. 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 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’s service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to any incidents that may have caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge at this time. 7. The applicant’s post-service accomplishments outlined in the application and in the documents with the application were also considered. However, these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted at this time. 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: 8 May 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) AR20140008507 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1