1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 October 2016 b. Date Received: 12 December 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 a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she was allowed to submit her resignation, after she was found guilty at an Article 15, for fraternization and a false statement. She does understand that her command found her guilty, and she accepts that decision, though she still respectfully disagrees. The issue stemmed from her marriage to her husband who was an ROTC cadet participating in the Green-to-Gold program at the time. The command decided that this was fraternization, and that she had lied during the investigation. She states, she did not lie about anything to do with her husband or their relationship. She does understand how they found that she had been fraternizing, and she accepted responsibility for that portion of the offenses. She can only explain that she loved her husband very much and they knew from the first time they met that they were destined to be together. They have two children and she would not trade them for anything in the world and she know that God's plan for their lives was for her husband and her to meet and spend the rest of their lives together. She states that she deeply regrets that the Army did not see the situation the way she did. She loved being in the Army and she was a good JAG Officer that loved her job. Her service records will reflect that she was excelling and she believes that had she stayed in the military, she would have made it a career. She had served honorably in the two years prior to meeting her husband, and sacrificed for the country. She believes that she should have an honorable discharge. Since her discharge, she has been working for the State and City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii as an Attorney and loves her work. She desires to return to work as a civilian in JAG or in a civilian capacity and she believes an honorable discharge would help her achieve that. Her husband is still in the military, where he is about to be promoted to 1LT and is doing very well as an officer. She loves being an Army spouse and she is very proud of him and his service. As they move to their next duty station, she would like to apply for other federal positions and would like to have her discharge characterized as honorable. She has been working as a Prosecutor in Honolulu for this past year, where her work has been excellent, which are reflected in her evaluations and she continues to excel as an attorney. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 March 2018, 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b and 4-24a (1) / BNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 17 September 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 1 April 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 4-2(b )(5) (acts of personal misconduct), and Paragraph 4-2(b )(8) (conduct unbecoming of an officer), for the following reasons: She made a false official statements to LTC R and LTC S. She knowingly fraternized with an enlisted person on terms of military equality by engaging in a romantic relationship. Conduct unbecoming of an officer as indicated above. (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (4) GCMCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: 8 July 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: the AD Hoc review board considered the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination in accordance with AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 August 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 5 February 2012 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education: 26 / Master's Degree c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 27A, Judge Advocate General / 2 years, 7 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 25 June 2012 - 22 October 2012 / Best Qualified 23 October 2012 - 4 June 2013 / Best Qualified 5 June 2013 - 31 March 2014 / Do Not Promote h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: AR 15-6 Investigation, dated 6 November 2013, reflects the investigating officer found the greater weight of the evidence confirmed that the applicant engaged in an inappropriate relationship with SFC J F. The greater weight of evidence supports that the applicant made a false official statement to LTC R on or about 1 October 2013. Additionally, the evidence suggests that the applicant made false official statements as to the status of her relationship with SFC J F between November 2012 and April 2013. GO Article 15, dated 2 January 2014, for on or about 1 October 2013 and on or about 29 October 2013, with intent to deceive, make to LTC R and to LTC S, a false official statement, to wit: that she did not engage in a romantic relationship with SFC F while he was an enlisted Soldier; and, for knowingly fraternize with SFC F, an enlisted person, on terms of military equality, to wit: engaging in a romantic relationship between 4 December 2012 and 9 August 2013. The punishment consisted of a written reprimand. Punitive General Officer Memorandum Of Reprimand, dated 3 February 2014, for fraternizing with an enlisted Soldier and making false official statements. Sometime between December 2012 and February 2013, she began a romantic relationship with SFC F, while they were both members of the 25th Infantry Division Staff. The relationship continued through May 2013, when the applicant became pregnant by SFC F, and culminated in August 2013 when she married SFC F. In October 2013, when the nature of this relationship was brought to the attention of her supervisors; she lied to LTC R, her Deputy Staff Judge Advocate and supervisor, and LTC S, the AR 15-6 Investigating Officer. She told LTC R and LTC S that she was not involved in a romantic relationship with SFC F until he became a cadet in ROTC, statements which she knew were false. SFC F did not become a cadet until August 2013, long after her relationship with him began. Her actions in fraternizing with an NCO caused disruption within the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, leading many members of that office to question whether a double-standard exists within the officer ranks and the legal community. Her failure to adhere to basic standards of conduct and her decision to intentionally make false official statements to her superior officers were inexcusable. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application, with all allied documents listed in the supporting documentation information section of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: She states, she has been working for the State and City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii as an Attorney. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. 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 "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct; and, 4-24a (1), resignation in lieu of elimination. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant's record of service, 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that her service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained. Further, the applicant's record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b and 4-24a (1), AR 600-8-24 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is "BNC." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends that she had good service. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for her accomplishments. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge will allow her to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 7 March 2018, 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 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 AR20160018953 1