1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 August 2016 b. Date Received: 23 August 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 and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, her separation was initiated in August 2014, four months after the revised AR 670-1 policy was released. Her tattoos were never photographed, nor was she counseled. She was informed she violated the policy by receiving a nondiscriminatory, non-racist, and nonsexist tattoo of a car on her left forearm approximately five inches in length and three inches in width. Her chain of command initiated separation under Chapter 13 for the tattoo in question. Early 2015, the tattoo policy was reviewed and revised, stating that tattoos were once again permitted below the elbows and knees. Thus her separation was resubmitted in August 2015 for a quarter sized tattoo of a skull on her left hand. During the process, she found a laser specialist to remove her tattoo so she could finish her enlistment honorably. Although her JAG attorney helped her speak with her commander about her intent to remove her tattoo and requested to complete her enlistment, her request was denied. She was further informed she would be separated under Chapter 14-12c, for serious misconduct. While understanding her hand tattoo was in violation of AR 670-1, it should not be considered as serious misconduct. She served as a military police, maintained a clean record of service, completed a six-month tour in Afghanistan, and served with the Criminal Investigation Division Drug Suppression Team for a year and a half. She served honorably. Her DD Form 214 should reflect her accomplishments, rather than negatively for a single offense which she made an effort to correct. The narrative reason for her discharge should be classified as a "Minor/Tattoo Placement," and not a serious misconduct. An upgrade would allow her to excel in her civilian life, education, and career. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 October 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. discharge is too harsh for grooming standards) mitigated the discrediting entry in the service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 18 November 2015 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 October 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant failed to obey a lawful order from her commander to remove her tattoo in order to comply with AR 670-1, paragraph 3-3c(3). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 22 October 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 October 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 April 2011 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / 14 years / 121 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31B10, Military Police / 4 years, 7 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (12 March 2012 to 5 September 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AGCM; NDSM; ACM-CA; GWOTSM; NCOPDR; ASR; OSR; NATOMDL; MUC g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statement for the applicant's tattoos on her left hand and fingers not being in compliance with AR 670-1, paragraph 3-3; having 15 calendar days to provide a written response or appeal and indicate whether she would seek medical options for removal or not to have the tattoo removed; declining to remove her tattoos; and refusing to remove the unauthorized tattoos constitutes violating a lawful order. Memorandum for Record, dated 18 August 2015, subject: Further information on tattoos, rendered by the operations sergeant, SSG M, described the tattoo on the applicant's left hand being approximately 1-inch by 2-inch, black in color skull with curly hair, and three other black in color tattoos located between her fingers. Memorandum for Record, dated 19 August 2015, subject: Response to counseling, rendered by the applicant, indicated she would not seek medical tattoo options to remove the tattoo she was counseled for. Letter, dated 20 October 2015, indicates the applicant was scheduled on 17 November 2015, to obtain her first treatment of up to 10 treatments of laser tattoo removal to remove the tattoo located on her left hand. Memorandum for Record, dated 22 October 2015, subject: Matters for [the applicant's] Administrative Separation Packet, rendered by a trial defense service judge advocate, indicates the applicant had taken step to have her tattoo removed and it was unjust to separate her for a serious misconduct which would mischaracterize her service. 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 2 August 2016; memorandum for record, dated 22 October 2015; and letter, dated 20 October 2015. 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 14-12c 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, paragraph 14-12c, 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 and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record 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 incident of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of her service. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence that her service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant's contentions were carefully considered. 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 and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of her service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that her complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of her characterization of service and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant has expressed a desire to excel in her civilian life, perhaps by having better job opportunities and with the benefits of the GI Bill. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities or to obtain veterans' benefits. Further, eligibility for veterans' benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant requests to change the reason for her separation; however, the narrative reason for her separation is governed by specific directives. The narrative reason specified by AR 635- 5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is JKQ. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 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. 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 25 October 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. discharge is too harsh for grooming standards) mitigated the discrediting entry in the service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed 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 AR20160015016 1