1. APPLICANT’S NAME: a. Application Date: 10 February 2015 b. Date Received: 13 February 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, REASON, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade to honorable. The applicant states, in effect, she’s a combat veteran who was involuntarily separated six months prior to her ETS date. She feels she was singled out for her early redeployment due to personal issues with her son. In a personal appearance review conducted at Arlington, Virginia, on 27 July 2015, and by 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request.) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 24 November 2014 c. Separation Facts: NIF (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: None (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 31 October 2014 / GD 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 31 May 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 89B10, Ammunition Specialist / 3 years, 5 months, 24 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (23 April 2014-31 July 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ACM-CS; ASR; NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: Mental health issues per applicant’s submitted evidence. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two counseling statements, dated 30 July 2014 and 26 August 2014, and an outpatient aeromedical evacuation command clearance with patient movement record, dated 20 July 2014. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): 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. Paragraph 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 8. DISCUSSION OF ISSUE(S): The applicant, seeking relief, contends she was involuntarily separated six months prior to her ETS date. She feels she was singled out by her chain of command due to personal circumstances causing her to redeploy early. Her record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army. 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. Her contentions were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the quality of her service. There is also 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 sufficient evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. Her statement alone does not overcome the presumption of government regularity and her application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of the request for an upgrade. Based on the available evidence and the presumption of government regularity, the discharge appears consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and she was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a new DD-214: No b. Change characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change e. Restoration to Grade: NA Authenticating Official: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: 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 FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry Honorable Conditions ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150002828 1