1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 November 2015 b. Date Received: 7 January 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, a change to the narrative reason for discharge and change her social security number on all of her DD Form's 214. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, when she was punished for her actions, she received punishment from her command and had left the unit. She completed all of her punishment only for that command to come after her after she had left the unit. She believes this was double jeopardy in reference to her military career. She contends she was a victim of identity theft and as a result she was issued a new social security number which she has documents supporting this change. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 21 July 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 May 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 February 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for falsifying a DA Form 705, Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard, and a DA Form 501-R, Body Fat Content Worksheet, both official documents, which were know by the applicant to be false; Stealing pay and allowances of a value of more than $500 which was the property of the US Government; and Fraudulently enlisting into the US Army by concealment of material information regarding her qualification for that enlistment and receiving pay or allowance under that enlistment. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 10 February 2006, the applicant requested her case be considered by an administrative separation board because she was being considered for separation under other than honorable conditions. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 20 April 2006, the administrative separation board having carefully considered the evidence before it, found the allegation of falsifying an official statement, larceny, and fraudulent enlistment were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In view of the findings, the board recommended that the applicant be separated from the United States Army with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 April 2006 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 October 2005 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 40 / Baccalaureate Degree / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 92A40, Automated Logistical Specialist / 16 years, 5 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 5 January 1987 to 5 October 1989 / HD RA, 6 October 1989 to 14 July 1994 / HD RA, 15 July 1994 to 9 February 1995 / HD RA, 10 February 1995 to 1 February 2000 / HD (Break-in-Service) ARNG, 10 December 2002 to 6 May 2004 / HD USAR, 7 May 2004 to 2 September 2004 / NA OAD, 2 September 2004 to 17 October 2005 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: During prior periods of service (Egypt, Japan, SWA, Germany / Kuwait (15 October 1990 to 15 June 1991) and Iraq (23 September 2004 to 21 September 2005)) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, JSAM, AAM-4, AGCM-4, NDSM-2, SWABS-3, NOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-5, AFRMM, MFOM-2, SAKULIBM, SAKULIBM, ICM, GWOTSM g. Performance Ratings: June 2005 to May 2006, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: The evidence of record shows the applicant has not received any non-judicial punishment for the current period of service under review. The evidence of record shows the separation documents make reference to two Article's 15 (7 February 2005 and 15 August 2005) and a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand the applicant received during a prior period of service which she received an honorable discharge. CID Report, dated 12 July 2005, shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for larceny of government property, forgery of test score results-uttering, and making a false statement. Memorandum from the US Army Human Resources Command, Alexandria VA, and dated 18 October 2005, shows the applicant's application for enlistment into the Regular Army was approved. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; documents supporting her issue for a change of her social security number; copy of her separation documents which includes several memorandum's of record pertaining to her raters/rating scheme, and NCOER's and Articles 15 from a prior period of service. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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, misconduct (serious offense). 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, a change to the narrative reason for discharge and a change to her social security number on all of her DD Form's 214. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms the applicant's 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 provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant requests a change to the narrative reason for her discharge. The appropriate SPD code and narrative reason to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged for misconduct (serious offense) is "JKQ" and the RE code is 3. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. The applicant seeks relief contending, when she was punished for her actions of misconduct in her prior period of service, she received punishment from her command and had left the unit. She had completed all of her punishment only for that command to come after her, after she had left the unit. She believes this was double jeopardy in reference to her military career. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that her discharge was the result of double jeopardy in reference to her military career. In fact, although the evidence of record shows that the unit commander's notification memorandum dated 10 February 2006, contained offenses the applicant committed in a prior period of service, it was noted that the applicant falsely obtained a promotion and received pay to which she appeared not to be entitled to which was a continuing offense; i.e., every day the lie and the larceny was repeated. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. 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 applicant's discharge is commensurate with her overall service record. Additionally, in reference to the applicant's request for a change to her social security number on all of her DD Form's 214; this requested change does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 21 July 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change f. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20160000170 3