1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 30 January 2017 b. Date Received: 14 February 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The counsel on behalf of the applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, in midst of a dire family emergency that threatened the well-being of the applicant's children, she made the agonizing choice of going AWOL after making reasonable efforts to obtain relief from her chain of command has been denied. Her going AWOL "was not an impulsive, flippant decision" as she made attempts to work with her command to attend to her family needs, and, "although she was given emergency leave for a short time-which she dutifully returned from-her request for reassignment and hardship discharge appear[ed] to have been stymied by her command." Since her discharge, despite being separated with an adverse discharge, she devoted herself to a nursing career that included providing exemplary service to Service Members at military medical facilities. She has received numerous recognitions for her exemplary contributions. The extenuating personal and family issues, detailed in the counsel-authored brief, that precipitated the applicant's discharge, and her exemplary post-service conduct and accomplishments warrant the relief she is seeking. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 August 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 19 February 2002 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 20 September 2001, the applicant was charged with the following: The Charge: Violation of Article 86, UCMJ, for absenting herself from her unit, without authority on 9 September 1997, until 14 September 2001. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 20 September 2001 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 February 2002 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 February 1997 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / GED / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 10 months, 29 days (includes an involuntary excess leave for 152 days, from 21 September 2001 to 19 February 2002, creditable for all purposes, except pay and allowances) d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Return of Absentee, dated 14 September 2001, indicates the applicant was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military control on 14 September 2001. Charge Sheet described at the preceding paragraph 3c(1). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 1,466 days (AWOL: 9 September 1997, until 13 September 2001) / Apprehended by civil authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 30 January 2017; attorney-authored brief, dated 1 February 2017; applicant's self- authored statement; applicant's resume; National Personnel Records Center letter, dated 6 January 2017, with enlistment documents (labeled as complete official military personnel record and reference KS0007-0086); ECPI College of Technology letters with transcripts, dated 27 November 1996; Naval Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps letter, dated 21 February 1997; birth certificate, dated 31 January 1997; two depicted licenses; marriage register; birth certificate, dated 31 December 1996; GED certificate; MGIB enrollment; two DA Forms 4187, dated 11 September 1997 and 10 October 1997; Deserter/Absentee Wanted by the Armed Forces, dated 10 October 1997; Report of Return of Absentee, dated 14 September 2001; Charge Sheet; USAREC Form 85, dated 13 September 2001; separation authority's decision memorandum, dated 8 February 2002, and its associated documents as separation file; discharge orders; SGLI election form; Personnel Qualification Record; Reports of Medical Examination and History, dated 21 January 1997; letter of recommendation, dated 5 March 2013; character reference statement; four email correspondence, dated 6 March 2012, 2 November 2011, and 13-14 March 2012; letter of recommendation, dated 12 March 2013; two certificates of dedication to academic excellence; email correspondence, dated 16 November 2011; and letter of recommendation, dated 14 July 2016. Additional evidence: Attorney- authored letter; two certificates for diligent and outstanding scholastic work in achieving dean's list status for winter 2017 and fall 2016; and Who's Who certificate in 2017 with letter, dated 17 May 2017. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The counsel-authored brief states, in effect, since the applicant's discharge, in March 2008, she has earned her practical nursing diploma, and subsequently, she received her Licensed Practical Nurse license and in June 2008, she was employed as an LPN and continued her work, serving as a drug treatment case manager and project manager. In January 2010, she began working with military Service Members, veterans, and their Family members at the Bethesda National Naval Medical Center, and in 2011, re- designated as the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. She also worked as an instructor at a college of technology in Baltimore. The additional evidence states, in pertinent part and in effect, that she received a bachelor's degree in health administration, and was recognized for making the Dean's List in 2016 and 2017 and selected for "Who's Who" Among Students in American Universities and Colleges, and received recognition for her excellent scholastic record. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. AR 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial." The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) and to change the narrative reason for her. The applicant's available record of service and the documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and she indicated she understood she could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran's benefits. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. Her record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority. The applicant contends that she was having family issues that affected her behavior and ultimately caused her to be discharged. However, she had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends her reasonable efforts to obtain relief from her chain of command, such as requests for reassignment and hardship discharge, have been denied. 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 contentions that she may have been unjustly discharged because her command was aware of her family situation. The applicant's statements alone does not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided that supports this contention. In consideration of the applicant's post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that her accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of her characterization of service or to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re- characterization 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 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 10 is "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial," and the separation code is KFS. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted no additional documents. b. The applicant presented no additional contentions. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None. 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 August 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 11. 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 AR20170002404 5