IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 June 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140009116 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 pertinent part and in effect, she was seven to eight months pregnant when she was on leave and unable to return to her unit. An upgrade is required due to her pregnancy and financial emergency, and for educational, family treatment, and health benefits. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 22 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 13 July 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Condition, Not a Disability, AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-17, JFV, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HSC, III Corps Headquarters and Headquarters Bn, 21st Cavalry Bde (Air Combat), Fort Hood, TX f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 23 January 2008, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years h. Total Service: 4 years i. Time Lost: 174 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 35F10, Intelligence Analyst m. GT Score: 112 n. Education: 2 years of college o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: AAM; AGCM; NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR 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 23 January 2008, for a period of 4 years. She was 19 years old at the time of entry and had two years of college. She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 35F10, Intelligence Analyst. She earned an AAM. Her record documents no other acts of valor or significant achievement. She completed 4 years of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record shows that on 22 May 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, AR 635-200, by reason of physical condition, not a disability for being diagnosed by competent medical authority with an adjustment disorder with anxious mood, and the condition was aggravated by military stressors and was severe enough that her ability to effectively perform militarily was significantly impaired. 2. The unit commander specifically recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge based on the applicant receiving an Article 15 on 27 June 2011, in which she was found guilty of being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer and AWOL from (110810-120131). The applicant was advised of her rights. 3. Subsequently, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Service. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 1 June 2012, the separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 13 July 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 6. The applicant's record shows a total of 174 days of time lost due to being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 10 August 2011 through 30 January 2012, until she was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to the military control. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Article 15, dated 27 June 2011, for being insubordinate towards an NCO. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-3 and an oral reprimand, (FG). (Note the Article 15 is NIF, but mentioned in the unit commander’s forwarding memorandum) 2. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 4 May 2012, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxious mood. The report also provided that her adjustment disorder was aggravated by military stressors and is severe enough that she was not able to adapt to military life; that continued military service was expected to result in increased risk of harm to self or others and inability to deploy or fulfill duties required by her MOS; and that the adjustment disorder was manifested by emotional and behavioral symptoms in response to significant distress and impairment in social and occupational functioning. 3. A counseling statement, dated 2 May 2012, for being processed for an involuntary separation due to a diagnosis by the health providers. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant did not provide any evidence with her application. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant provided none. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-17 specifically provides that a Soldier may be separated for other physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty and requires that the diagnosis be so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired.  2. AR 635-200, paragraph 5-1, states that a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, under honorable conditions, or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status.  3. A general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally inappropriate for individuals separated under the provisions of Chapter 5-17 unless properly notified of the specific factors in the service that warrant such characterization. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge was carefully considered. However, after a careful review of all the available records for the period of enlistment under review, and the issues she submitted, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. A mental status evaluation by competent medical authority diagnosed the applicant with an adjustment disorder with anxious mood. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation under provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, by reason of other designated physical or mental condition not amounting to a disability, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge and informed the applicant as to the specific factors in the service record that would warrant such discharge. She was informed that the recommendation was based on receiving an Article 15 on 27 June 2011, for being disrespectful in language towards an NCO, and for being absent without leave from her unit. 3. The applicant contends that due to her pregnancy she was unable to return to her unit, which caused her to be AWOL and ultimately caused her to be discharged. However, she had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. 4. The applicant contends she followed the correct protocol and notification in an emergency situation for a situation that was out of her control and that her AWOL status was inappropriate according to the regulation. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she may have been unjustly discriminated. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. 5. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow her benefits, such as educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. Furthermore, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of obtaining veteran’s benefits. 6. 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. Accordingly, the record confirms that all the requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 7. Therefore, the narrative reason for discharge being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 3 June 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 2 No Change: 3 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: 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 FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry Honorable Conditions ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140009116 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1