1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 March 2016 b. Date Received: 14 March 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, she does not agree with her discharge. Her child, born on 22 September 2014, was diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy in May 2015, which was the reason for her discharge. Her child's medical condition caused numerous doctors' appointments. Her chain of command was not at all flexible and refused on many occasions to work with her so that she could get her child the care he required. (The applicant detailed the circumstances and events surrounding her doctors' appointments and interactions with her chain of command.) She asserts that she was never properly counseled-prior to her separation, she was bombarded with backdating counseling statements that never occurred and she was forced to sign the statements. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 June 2017, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is harsh and inequitable. The Board found the overall length of the applicant's service and the circumstances surrounding her discharge (i.e. severe family matters) mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (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: 31 July 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 30 June 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: failing to be at her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on divers occasions between 1 August 2014 and 11 May 2015, and making a false official statement to SGT R on 6 May 2015. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 1 July 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 July 2015 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 July 2013 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 88 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 2 years, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for failing to attend the post-partum physical training; missing scheduled pregnancy appointment; failing to be at her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; making false official statements; and being flagged for adverse actions. CG Article 15, dated 15 September 2014, for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on divers occasions between 1 August 2014 and 25 August 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 May 2015, cleared the applicant from a behavioral health perspective for administrative separation according to AR 635-200. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 9 March 2016, with self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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 14-12b 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. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" 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. The applicant's record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record further confirms that 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. By the incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of her service. 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 she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends she is entitled to an upgrade of her discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to her discharge. Specifically, she claims her child's numerous medical appointments resulted in her discharge. While the applicant may believe her child's medical condition and numerous appointments were the underlying cause of her discharge, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that she sought relief from stress through her command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because she was never properly counseled, and she was forced to sign backdated counseling statements. 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 her issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that she may have been unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. Furthermore, the record of service indicates that before initiating discharge proceedings, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about her deficiencies which could lead to separation. The command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory Soldier. The evidence contained in the service record establishes the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies by providing counseling and by the imposition of a non-judicial punishment. As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service. 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 2 June 2017, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is harsh and inequitable. The Board found the overall length of the applicant's service and the circumstances surrounding her discharge (i.e. severe family matters) mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKN / No change to RE code f. Restore 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 AR20160005878 3