IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 May 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140008802 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 restoration of her rank. 2. The applicant states, in effect, at the time of her separation, her current spouse was divorcing his ex-wife and she told the chain of command that [she] was having an adulterous relationship with him. She was not allowed to explain the situation. She contends she would like her rank restored since she served 12 years and two tours in Iraq. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 16 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 26 October 2004 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Unsatisfactory Performance, AR 635-200, Chapter 13, JHJ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 233nd Transportation Company, Fort Knox, KY f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 2 February 2001/4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 8 months, 25 days h. Total Service: 11 years, 2 months, 5 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: USAR, 931221-981111, NA ADT, 940311-940624, UNC RA, 981112-010201, HD (Concurrent Service) k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-5 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 88M10, Motor Transport Operator m. GT Score: 86 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA, Kuwait p. Combat Service: Iraq (030227-030713)(040223-040612) q. Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM-2, NPDR, ASR, GWOTEM, GWOTSM r. Administrative Separation Board: Waived s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve on 21 December 1993, for a period of 8 years. She was 21 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She reenlisted in the Regular Army on 12 November 1998, for a period of 3 years and again on 2 February 2001, for a period of 4 years. She served in Kuwait and Iraq and completed 11 years, 2 months, 5 days of creditable military service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, the applicant was serving at Fort Knox, KY. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s service record shows that on 27 September 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance. Specifically for having an adulterous relationship with another Soldier, disobeying a lawful order, receiving a FG Article 15, and displaying conduct that violates the accepted standards of personal conduct found in Army Regulations, the UCMJ, and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 2. The unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of her rights. 3. On 5 October 2004, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived her right to have her case considered by an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement on her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. 4. On 8 October 2004, 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. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 26 October 2004, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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. Article 15, dated 18 August 2004, for disobeying a lawful order between May 2004 and August 2004. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1 (suspended), and 30 days of extra duty (suspended) (FG). The record is void of any vacation of imposed punishment. 2. Several negative counseling statements, dated between 20 February 2004 and 2 August 2004, for initiation of flag, having an unprofessional relationship, failure to obey an order, adultery, insubordinate conduct, violating General Order 1, and assault. 3. Incident Report, dated 7 July 2004, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for assault (4th Degree). 4. DD Form 2329 (Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial), dated 23 April 2004, reflects the applicant was found guilty of disobeying a commissioned officer. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of two-thirds pay for one month, and two months restriction. 5. Mental Status Evaluation, dated 15 September 2004, reflects the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish between right and wrong, and had no mental defects. 6. Three NCOERs covering the period June 2002 through May 2004. The applicant was rated as “Among the Best” and “Fully Capable” by his raters. He received a “1/1,” a “2/2,” and a “3/3” rating from his senior rater for “Overall Performance/Overall Potential.” EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 11 May 2014 and a DD Form 214. 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. 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 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 request her rank be restored. However, the applicant’s request for restoration of her rank does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 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 applicant contends the chain of command did not give her a chance to explain her situation when she was accused of an adulterous relationship. However, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with her overall service record. 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: 20 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) AR20140008802 Page 2 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1