IN THE CASE OF: Ms.
BOARD DATE: 14 January 2015
CASE NUMBER: AR20140002746
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. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant’s discharge, the Board found that the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 27, contains the erroneous re-entry code of 4. The Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read RE-3, as required by Army Regulations.
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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.
2. The applicant states, in effect, her discharge is unjust because prior to her discharge date she received notification that she was pregnant. She states she received her discharge orders on 22 August 2012 and was notified of her positive pregnancy test on 20 August 2012. She contends she informed her chain of command that she was pregnant however, she was discharged on 30 August 2012.
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:
a. Application Receipt Date: 7 February 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 30 August 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Desertion), AR 635-200, Chapter
14-12c, JKF, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment: 513th Transportation Company, Joint Base
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 29 June 2010/3 years, 19 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 8 months, 21 days
h. Total Service: 1 year, 8 months, 21 days
i. Time Lost: 161 days
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 88M10, Motor Transport Operator
m. GT Score: 95
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: None
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: NA
s. Performance Ratings: NA
t. Counseling Statements: Yes
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 June 2010, for a period of 3 years and 19 weeks. She was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. Her record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement. She completed 1 year, 8 months, 21 days of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. On 2 August 20102, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense). Specifically for being AWOL from 20 October 2011 until her apprehension on 14 March 2012:
2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
3. On 6 August 2012, 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 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 16 August 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
5. The applicant was separated on 30 August 2012, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(1) with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKF, and an RE code of 4.
6. The applicant’s record shows she was AWOL during the periods of 19 August 2011 through 5 September 2011, and 20 October 2011 through 13 March 2012. She was apprehended and returned to military control. As a note, the commanders report indicates the applicant had 114 days of lost time due to AWOL.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:
1. Several DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated between 21 October 2011 and 14 March 2012, changing the applicants duty status.
2. Article 15, dated 26 July 2012, for being AWOL from 20 October 2011 until she was apprehended on 14 March 2012. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $689 pay per month for two months (suspended) (FG).
3. Article 15, dated 11 October 2011, for failing to go from her appointed place of duty with the intent to abandon on 15 August 2011, failing to go at the time prescribed to accountability formation and extra duty on 16 August 2011 and 17 August 2011, and for being AWOL from 19 August 2011 until 6 September 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $733 pay per month for two months, to be suspended if not vacated before 31 January 2011, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG).
4. Article 15, dated 15 August 2011, for failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty x 2 on 13 June 2011 and 14 June 2011. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $200 pay per month for one month, 14 days extra duty and a oral reprimand (CG).
5. DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 13 December 2011, vacated the suspended punishment of $733 pay per month for one month imposed on 11 October 2011, for making a false official statement to CSM B.
6. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 25 May 2012, reflects the applicant had no obvious impairments could appreciate the difference between right and wrong, and was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. The applicant was screened for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and mild Traumatic Brain Injury and these conditions were not present.
7. DA Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 2 December 2011, for being AWOL on 20 October 2011.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:
The applicant provided an online application, dated 12 January 2014, a DD Form 214, a Grant County Health Department certificate of birth issued on 2 February 2010, a printout from the Social Security Administration, dated 21 January 2014, and medical records.
The applicant did not provide any in support of her application.
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. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of “JKF” will be assigned an RE Code of 3.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge 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 merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.
2. After a careful review of the applicants military records, the service record reflects that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 27, a reentry code (RE) of 4. Recommend the following administrative correction to block 27 be corrected to read RE-3 as authorized by applicable regulations.
3. The record confirms that 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 diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicants record of service was marred by three Article 15s for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and a negative counseling statement.
4. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command’s action was erroneous or that the applicants service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.
5. The applicant contends her discharge is unjust because prior to her discharge she notified her chain of command that she was pregnant. However, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct.
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 applicants discharge is commensurate with her overall service record.
7. Except for the modification state in paragraph 2, 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: Records Review Date: 14 January 2015 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify, NA
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: Yes
Change Characterization to: No Change
Change Reason to: No Change
Change Authority for Separation: NA
Change RE Code to: 3
Grade Restoration to: NA
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) AR20140002746
Page 6 of 6 pages
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)
CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE