IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 February 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140018099 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s available record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of her service to include her combat service, and documentary evidence showing PTSD issues, which may have been the contributing factors in the misconduct that led to her discharge, and as a result, it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable, and voted not to change it. This action entails restoration of grade to E-4/SPC. 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 under other than honorable to general, under honorable conditions or honorable, and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, her discharge was inequitable and unjust because it was based on one isolated incident in her 28 months of service with no other adverse action. She believes that there was prejudice towards her. It is her opinion that her discharge should be honorable and that she should have been medically boarded and discharged based off the doctors’ reports/statements. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 16 October 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 17 February 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200 Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: HHD, 728th MP Bn, Schofield Barracks, HI f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 2 December 2005, 6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 6 years, 2 months, 16 days h. Total Service: 10 years, 5 months, 23 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: RA (000203-011012) / GD ARNG (020812-050308) / HD RA (050309-051201) / HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-6 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92G10, Food Service Operations Specialist m. GT Score: 98 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Hawaii, Korea, SWA p. Combat Service: Iraq (070205-080415) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM; AAM-4; AGCM-2; NDSM; ICM-CS GWOTSM; KDSM; NPDR; ASR; OSR-3 r. Administrative Separation Board: NIF s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 May 2002, for a period of three years. She was 25 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED). She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92G10, Food Service Operations Specialist. She served in Hawaii, Korea, and Iraq. She earned an ARCOM and four AAM awards. She completed 10 years, 5 months, and 23 days of active duty and reserve 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 authenticated by the applicant’s digital signature. 2. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 17 February 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Chapter 14, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKQ and a reentry (RE) code of 4. 3. The applicant’s available record shows recorded actions under the UCMJ and no unauthorized absences or time lost. 4. On 31 June 2007, HQDA USAG-Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, HI, Orders Number 044-0012, discharged the applicant from the Army, effective 17 February 2012. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Discharge orders. 2. There is no record of any negative counseling statements. 3. Article 15, dated 19 November 2010, signing two false official documents (100512). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of $1,146 (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty (suspended) (FG). 4. Article 15, dated 14 June 2010, with intent to defraud drafting and presenting a check with insufficient funds (100409) and wrongfully altering her military ID card (100409). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-5, forfeiture of $1,380 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty, and 45 days of restriction (suspended) (FG). 5. One NCOER: A “Change of Rater” report covering the period of 1 September 2008 to 31 July 2009. The applicant was rated as “Fully Capable” and received 2/2 from the senior rater. 6. DA Form 1059, Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 31 August 2006, indicates the applicant achieved the course standards of the Warrior Leadership Course. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a narrative summary of her psychiatric treatment for the MEB. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant provided none. 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. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense). 5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned a SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned a RE Code of 4 based on a UOTH characterization of service. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge and to change the narrative reason for her discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s available record of service, her military records, and the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit a change to the narrative reason for her 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 for her 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 14-12c by reason of misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of under other than 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. However, there are several mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to honorable for the following reasons: a. Length and quality of service: The applicant served over 6 years of her latter 6-year reenlistment. (Note that there is no record available to provide the reason she was retained beyond her 6-year reenlistment.) However, the preponderance of her service would have been honorable, if not for the two Article 15 actions, and any other UCMJ actions that are not available. The applicant also served two previous enlistments with honorable service. b. The record confirms the applicant received several awards, specifically an ARCOM and four AAM awards. c. The applicant’s record reflects documentary evidence of the applicant’s PTSD issues, which may have contributed to the misconduct that led to her discharge. 4. This recommendation is made after full consideration of all of the applicant’s faithful and satisfactory service, as well as the records of misconduct. The PTSD evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service may now be too harsh and as a result inequitable. 5. Regarding the applicant's contentions that she should have been medically boarded and discharged based off the doctors’ reports/statements; that her discharge was inequitable and unjust because it was based on one isolated incident in her 28 months of service with no other adverse action; and that she believes that there was prejudice towards her. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the basis for the applicant's discharge. 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 any evidence, to support a change to the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or insufficient evidence in support of the request for the narrative reason for her discharge. 6. It would be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents at her personal appearance hearing, such as her 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. 7. The applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 8. Therefore, based on the available evidence and the government presumption of regularity, it appears the reason for discharge is both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief of changing the narrative reason for her discharge. However, based on the submitted evidence, it appears the characterization of the discharge is now inequitable and it is recommended the Board grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Personal Appearance Date: 9 February 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Tender Offer Counsel: None Board Vote: Character Change: 5 No Change: 0 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: Yes Change Characterization to: Honorable Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change Grade Restoration to: E-4/SPC 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) AR20140018099 Page 8 of 8 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1