IN THE CASE OF: Ms.
BOARD DATE: 4 February 2015
CASE NUMBER: AR20140003558
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.
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 was based on an isolated incident in an otherwise flawless record of 30 months of service.
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:
a. Application Receipt Date: 21 February 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 13 June 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, AR 635-200,
Chapter 9, JPD, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment: A Troop, 1st Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry
Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 16 August 2010/3 years, 25 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 9 months, 28 days
h. Total Service: 2 years, 9 months, 28 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 14S10, Avenger Crewmember
m. GT Score: 99
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: None
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: N/A
s. Performance Ratings: N/A
t. Counseling Statements: Yes
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 August 2010 for a period of 3 years and 25 weeks. She was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She completed 2 years, 9 months, and 28 days of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Fort Irwin, California.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. The evidence of record indicates that on 18 June 2012, the applicant received a diagnosis of alcohol dependency as confirmed by the Clinical Consultant Physician to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP). On 26 June 2012, the applicant was referred to Loma Linda Inpatient treatment for a period of 4 weeks (120802-120904).
2. On 20 February 2013, the unit commander in consultation with the ASAP Clinical Director, declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure.
3. On 14 May 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 9, by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure. Specifically for the following incidents:
a. enrolled in ASAP and diagnosed with alcohol dependency (120618),
b. tested positive for MDMA (120104), and
c. involved in an incident, in which it was reported, her breath smelled like alcohol (130210)
4. The unit commander advised the applicant of her rights and recommended a discharge from the Army with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions and waiver of any rehabilitation measures.
5. On 14 May 2013, the applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected not to submit a statement on her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
6. The record is void of when the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
7. The applicants record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.
8. The applicant was separated on 13 June 2013, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JPD and a reentry code of 4.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:
1. An Article 15, dated 12 March 2012, for wrongfully possessing alcohol in her barracks room (120118) and wrongfully using methylenedioxymethamphetamine (between on or about 111230 and 120104). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of $745.00 pay per month for two months (suspended), 45 days of extra duty and restriction, and oral reprimand (FG).
2. On 18 February 2013, the Commanders Inquiry findings state the preponderance of the evidence shows that SPC M did consume alcohol on the night of 9 February 2013 through the early morning hours of 10 February 2013.
3. One counseling statement, dated 21 February 2013, informing the applicant that an investigation into consumption of alcohol had been initiated.
4. A Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 April 2013, reflects that the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:
1. The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 25 December 2013, a DD Form 214 covering the period of service on active duty training.
2. The applicant provided the following documents in support of her application:
a. Self-authored statement that details the evening of 16 February 2013, alcohol-related incident.
b. Screen shots of text messages between the applicant and Ms. T, the applicants friend that called the police the evening of 16 February 2013 (3 pages).
c. Two letters of recommendation, dated 7 June 2012 & 25 June 2012, written by her former supervisor and company commander. The letters state the applicant tested positive on a urinalysis following Christmas block leave; however, it was concluded that her drink was likely tampered with. In addition, the letters allude to the fact that the applicant improved her off duty choices and made a lot of life changing decisions.
d. Memorandum for Record (MFR), dated 30 July 2012, Subject: Agreement to On Post Housing Inspection, written by the applicant. The applicant authorized her platoon or battery chain of command to conduct random weekly inspections of her living quarters, not to exceed three times a month.
e. MFR, dated 30 July 2012, Subject: Memorandum of Agreement for Residence of PFC F. The MFR outlined specific roles, responsibilities, and allowance regarding house inspections of the applicants residence on Fort Irwin, California.
f. Three DA Forms 4187, dated between 26 October 2010 and 9 November 2012, reflects the applicants advancement and promotions from PV2 to SPC.
g. DA Form 5790-R (Record Firing Scorecard), dated 26 November 2012.
h. Enlisted Record Brief, dated 20 February 2013.
i. Nine certificates of training, completion, and achievement.
j. Department of Veterans Affairs Muskogee Regional Office, dated 13 May 2013, Certificate of Eligibility for education or training under the Post 9/11 GI Bill.
None was provided with the application.
1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse.
2. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.
3. Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on the applicants overall record of service. However, an honorable discharge is required if limited use information is used in the discharge process.
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 “JPD” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure.
5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of “JPD” will be assigned an RE Code of 4.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicants military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there were insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.
2. The applicant was enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) and was aware of the consequences of any action which would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program. As a result of the applicants actions and after consultation with the drug and alcohol abuse counselor, the command declared the Soldier a rehabilitation failure. The evidence of record establishes the fact the applicant was properly counseled and afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome her problems.
3. The applicant 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.
4. The record shows the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.
5. 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: Records Review Date: 4 February 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: No
Change Characterization to: No Change
Change Reason to: No Change
Change Authority for Separation: NA
Change RE Code to: NA
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) AR20140003558
Page 6 of 6 pages
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)
CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE