AR20140002284

IN THE CASE OF: Ms.

BOARD DATE: 21 January 2015

CASE NUMBER: AR20140002284
___________________________________________________________________________

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 APPLICANTS REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

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

2. The applicant states, in effect, she wants to make up for her behavior as a youth. She contends she should be eligible for veteran benefits because her discharge was based on an isolated event. She states she is not making any excuses for her actions on that day and is only asking for consideration of her behavior and character before and after the incident. She states, she was a model Soldier whose work was accurate and efficient. She volunteered to deploy to Afghanistan and was requested by the lieutenant, whom she assaulted, to be on her team due to their past work relationship. She is deeply regretful for assaulting the lieutenant. She embarrassed her unit and herself. She contends she was 20 years old at the time of the assault and thought she had everything together. She took her frustrations out on the lieutenant after finding out the deployment had been extended for three months. She states her relationship with the lieutenant was like big sister little sister. The applicant states she did not realize the severity of her actions but does now. After her discharge, she has graduated college and maintained employment. She has not been in any trouble since or been in jail. She contends she has psychological problems due to the incident and the events which led up to the event. She was a young adult who was unable to properly control her emotions.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date: 7 January 2014
b. Discharge Received: Bad Conduct
c. Date of Discharge: 22 May 2007
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Court-Martial, Other, AR 635-200, Chapter 3
JJD, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment: Company A, 10th Soldier Support Battalion
Combined/Joint Task Force (CJTF), Bagram Afghanistan
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 12 June 2001/4 years (The applicants DD
Form 214 has an enlistment date in error of 010611)
g. Current Enlistment Service: 5 years, 11 months, 12 days
h. Total Service: 6 years, 10 months, 3 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 000721-010610, NA
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 73C, Finance Specialist
m. GT Score: 103
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: SWA
p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (NIF)
q. Decorations/Awards: ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: NA
s. Performance Ratings: NA
t. Counseling Statements: NIF
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 June 2001, for a period of 4 years. She was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She served in Afghanistan and did not earn any significant awards of valor or achievement. She completed 6 years, 10 months, 3 days of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving in Afghanistan.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. The record shows that on 15 February 2004, the applicant was found guilty by a special court-martial of assault upon a commissioned officer. She was sentenced to be discharged with a Bad Conduct Discharge, confinement for three months, and reduction to the grade of
E-1. The forfeiture of pay and allowances was waived effective 29 February 2004 until 29 May 2004.

2. On 23 June 2004, the sentence was approved. The record of trial was forwarded to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by the Court of Military Review on 12 June 2006. The United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence.

3. On 9 November 2006, the sentence was ordered to be executed.

4. The applicant was separated from the Army on 22 May 2007, with a bad conduct discharge, separation code of JJD, and a reentry code of 4.

5. The applicants service record shows she had 1,119 days of excess leave from 29 April 2004 until 22 May 2007.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:

1. DA Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 15 December 2003, for disrespecting a superior commissioned officer, striking a superior commissioned officer, in the execution of her office, on the head, arms, legs, and face with her fists and feet, and disobeying a lawful order.

2. Special Court-Martial Order Number 1, dated 23 June 2004, reflects the applicant was found guilty of a lesser included offense of assault upon a commissioned officer, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. The sentence consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, confinement for three months, and a Bad Conduct discharge.
3. Special Court-Martial Order Number 155, dated 9 November 2006, reflects the approved findings of guilty and the sentence was affirmed on 12 June 2006, and ordered the Bad Conduct discharge to be executed.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 27 January 2014, a DD Form 214, and Special Court-Martial Order Number 155, dated 9 November 2006.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY:

The applicant states she graduated college, maintains employment and has never committed a crime or been to jail.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3, Section IV establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.

2. Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the ADRB to be established facts, issues relating to the applicants innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief.

3. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the ADRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed.

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 “JJD” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 3, court-martial, other.

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 documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to warrant clemency.

2. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the incidents of misconduct. The service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process.

3. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed.

4. The applicant contends that she was young and immature at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Furthermore, the applicant admitted to and accepts full responsibility for her actions.

5. The applicant further contends the incident that caused her discharge was the only one in her entire Army career. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant’s incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.

6. The applicant requests an upgrade of her discharge in order to be eligible for veteran benefits. 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. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case

8. In view of the foregoing, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny clemency.

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 21 January 2015 Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify, NA

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA

Board Vote:
Character Change: 0 No Change: 5
Reason Change: NA No Change: NA
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214: No
Change Characterization to: No Change
Change Reason to: NA
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) AR20140002284

Page 6 of 6 pages

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

1