1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 April 2016 b. Date Received: 28 April 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 effect, there was no misconduct or performance issues that would have caused her to receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 June 2017, 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: NA / AR 135-175 / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 26 May 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 December 2002 / Appointment as a Reserve Commissioned Officer for an indefinite term b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 32 / BS Nursing / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O2 / Health Services Officer, MS- USAR / 16 years, 8 months, 21 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR (6 September 1989 to 19 September 1989) / NA IADT (20 September 1989 to 22 February 1990) / UNC USAR (23 February 1990 to 4 September 1997) / NA USAR (5 September 1997 to 1 December 2002) / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: NIF / NIF f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Four memoranda, dated 13 July 2004, 13 April 2005, 4 January 2006, and 23 March 2006, subject: notification of Promotion Status, notified the applicant that she was found not qualified for promotion by promotion board that convened on 22 June 2004, 31 March 2005, 1 December 2005, and 1 March 2006, respectively, because there was no record which indicated she had completed the military education requirement, and absent the required education, she would be discharged not later than 18 months from the date she was found not qualified for promotion. There is no record of any negative counseling statement or action under the UCMJ. Discharge Orders, dated 19 May 2006 i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 135-175 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of officers from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), except for officers serving on active duty or active duty training exceeding 90 days. Chapters 2 and 3 of this regulation provide the basis for involuntary separations of USAR officers. Specific categories include substandard performance of duty, moral or professional dereliction, in the interest of national security, as a result of trial by court martial, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, homosexual conduct, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without proper authority from unit training. 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The evidence shows the applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to her discharge from the United States Army Reserve. However, the applicant's record does contain properly constituted Orders which was authenticated by the appropriate military authority. The record indicates that on 19 May 2006, Department of the Army, Headquarters, US Army Reserve Command, Fort McPherson, GA, Orders 06-139-00021, discharged the applicant from the United States Army Reserve, effective 26 May 2006 (VOCG), with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. There were no additional instructions. This document identifies the characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant's service mitigated the type of discharge she received from the US Army Reserve. The applicant's contentions that there was no misconduct or performance issue that would have caused her to receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is 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 any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further sufficient evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. Based on the available record, 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 16 June 2017, 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160009252 1