IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 November 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140009527 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony, 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 discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect that she would like an upgrade of her discharge for the purpose of being able to go back to school and continue her degree in criminal justice technology and to rejoin the military. She contends her discharge was unjust as well against regulation. She believes she was mistreated by members of her chain of command. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 20 May 2014 b. Discharge received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 16 December 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14 Paragraph 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 94th Sig Co, 193rd BSB, 4th MEB, Fort Leonard Wood, MO f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 7 November 2011, 3 years and 24 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 1 month, 10 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 1 month, 10 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist m. GT Score: 87 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 (provided by the applicant) u. Prior Board Review: None SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 November 2011, for a period of 3 years and 24 weeks. She was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She was serving at Fort Leonard Wood, MO when her discharge was initiated. The record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements. She completed 2 years, 1 month, and 10 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 9 December 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct. Specifically for the following offenses: a. failure to report and leaving her appointed place of duty on multiple occasions, b. disrespecting multiple noncommissioned officers, c. disobeying multiple noncommissioned officers orders, d. disobeying a commissioned officer's direct order, and e. making numerous false official statements. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of her rights. 3. The applicant’s election of rights is not contained in the available record, therefore the presumption of government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. However, evidence shows the unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 11 December 2013, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 16 December 2013, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct, with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKA and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: The applicant’s available record does not contain any recorded actions under the UCMJ, or counseling statements. However, the unit commander's recommendation memorandum and documents submitted by the applicant indicate she received two Article 15s and a vacation of suspension: a. Article 15, imposed on 27 August 2013, for failure to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty x 4 (130718, x 2 (130723), and 130724). Punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-2 and 14 days restriction (both suspended), forfeiture of $396.00 pay, extra duty for 14 days, and an oral reprimand (CG). b. Article 15, imposed on 5 November 2013, for failure to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (131010), disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer order (131015), and dereliction of duty (131010). Punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $758.00 pay per month for two months (suspended), extra duty for 45 days, and an oral reprimand, and c. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 19 November 2013, for vacation of suspension of forfeiture of $758.00 pay per month for two months as a result of FTR x 3. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, a self-authored statement, a letter addressed to the Office of the Chief of Staff and congressman, copy of her certificate of birth and marriage, copies of her several developmental counseling forms dated between 7 May 2012 and 26 November 2013, documents from her medical records, copies of her enlisted record briefs (4), DA Form 4187, concerning reassignment intra-brigade/local station, dated 13 May 2013, and change of duty status, profiles, appointment slips, Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecards, copies of record of proceedings under Article 15 UCMJ three (3), leave form, separation order, change of duty station order, sworn statement, copies of her separation packet, and a copy of slides pertaining to accommodating religious practices. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None provided with the application. 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, the documents 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. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by two Articles 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 3. 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. 4. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that 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 as shown by the incidents of misconduct and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 5. The applicant contends she was unjustly discharged and she was mistreated by members of her chain of command. 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 this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she was unjustly discharged and mistreated by members of her command. In fact, the applicant’s Articles 15 justify a pattern of misconduct. 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. 6. The applicant expressed her desire for an upgrade of her discharge for the purpose of being able to go back to school and rejoin the military. 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. 7. Furthermore, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There is no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 8. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Personal Appearance Date: 17 November 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: None 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: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change 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) AR20140009527 Page 2 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1