AR20140001454

IN THE CASE OF: Ms.

BOARD DATE: 28 July 2014

CASE NUMBER: AR20140001454
___________________________________________________________________________

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 APPLICANTS REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

1. The applicant requests an upgrade of her discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation.

2. The applicant states, in effect, she feels her discharge should have been upgraded because her thought content was not clear as stated by the psychiatrist in her evaluation. Her rape was real and not imagined. She informed her commander and nothing was done; she asked for help and received none. The Veterans Administration (VA) conducted a psychology evaluation granted her a 70 percent disability rating for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and bipolar manic depressive traits.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date: 10 January 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 30 July 2003
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: C Company, Medical Center Brigade, Washington, DC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 16 November 1999, 6 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 8 months, 15 days
h. Total Service: 3 years, 8 months, 15 days
i. Lost time: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 91X10, Mental Health Specialist
m. GT Score: 109
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: None
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: No
t. Counseling Statements: No
u. Prior Board Review: Yes/28 August 2013/Records Review

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant’s record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 November 1999, for a period of 6 years. She was 21 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91X10, Mental Health Specialist. Her record does not show that she served in combat, but she earned an AAM; and she achieved the rank of SPC/E-4. She was serving at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC when her discharge was initiated.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates on 25 June 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct- commission of serious offense for wrongfully using marijuana and cocaine.

2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.

3. On 27 June 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement on her behalf. 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. The separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 30 July 2003, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3.

6. The applicants service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences, time lost or any negative counseling statements.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:

1. An Article 15 dated 28 May 2002, for wrongfully using marijuana (011225-020124) and cocaine (020118-020124); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $650 pay x 2 months ($200 suspended), and extra duty for 30 days, (FG).

2. The record also contains a positive urinalysis report coded IR (Inspection Random), dated 28 May 2003, for THC.

3. A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 26 November 2002, which indicated the applicant was being treated by the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP).
The applicant had no psychiatric condition that warranted disposition through medical channels and had the capacity to participate in the pending chapter proceedings. She was psychiatrically cleared for any action deemed appropriate by the command.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided an online application (six pages).

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY:

The applicant did not provide any information with her 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 members 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 Soldiers 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.

5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of “JKQ” will be assigned an RE Code of 3.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge and a change to the narrative reason was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicants record of service, her military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge or a change to the narrative reason for separation.

2. The record confirms the applicants 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. The applicant, by violating the Army’s policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army’s drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable discharge. The applicants record of service was marred by an Article 15, and a positive urinalysis report.

3. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command’s action was erroneous or that her service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.

4. The applicant requested a change to the narrative reason for separation. However, 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, for misconduct. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.

5. The applicant contends she feels her discharge should have been upgraded because her thought content was not clear as stated by the psychiatrist in her evaluation. The evidence of record shows that on 26 November 2002, the applicant underwent an evaluation which indicated she was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. The psychiatrist indicated the applicant was suffering from cocaine and marijuana dependence with psychological dependence in early full remission.

6. The applicant further contends her rape was real and not imagined. Although the applicant alleges that she was a victim of rape during her military service, there is no evidence in her military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention. Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge.

7. The applicant also contends she informed her commander and nothing was done; she asked for help and received none. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that she sought relief through her command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct.

8. Further, 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 applicants discharge is commensurate with his overall service record.

9. The applicant additionally contends the VA conducted a psychology evaluation and granted her a 70 percent disability rating for PTSD and bipolar manic depressive traits. The fact the VA granted the applicant a disability rating for service connected medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of her discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during her discharge processing that would have warranted her separation processing through medical channels.

10. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.

11. 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: Personal Appearance Date: 28 July 2014 Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify: Yes

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: No

DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE:

1. The applicant submitted the following additional documents: a plaque received before discharge.

2. The applicant presented no additional contentions.

In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing.

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 RE Code to: NA
Grade Restoration to: NA
Change Authority for Separation: 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) AR20140001454

Page 2 of 7 pages

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

1