1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 26 March 2015 b. Date Received: 27 April 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade her under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief, contending, in effect, that she was a good Soldier and a lesbian who enlisted in the Army thinking that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) would work. The applicant contends that it does not work because she requested to have her long term girlfriend as a battle buddy was denied. The applicant further contends that she was threatened with rape and bodily harm almost daily and even though she informed the drill sergeant and the first sergeant, the taunts and threats to her personal safety continued. The applicant also contends that she tried talking to her chain of command, the chaplain, and she was told repeatedly to suck it up and drive on. She tried to do the right thing until she hit rock bottom, broken and on suicide watch. The applicant contends that, besides the psychological treatment she was receiving, no one tried to help her and she was forced to sleep in a cage in the office. While they loomed over her all night saying; "The dyke is in the zoo". The applicant contends that she was all alone, threatened physically and was emotionally abused by nearly every person at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. The applicant contends that the witch hunt was constant and the avenues for assistance completely cut off because if she told the truth, she would be forced out under homosexual conduct. The applicant contends that during Christmas Exodus she did not intend to stay gone and that she had all the intention of returning to her unit. The applicant states that she is sorry, she had to keep her identity a secret, and that she could not tell what was really wrong. She was a good Soldier abused by her fellow service members every day and that is why she feels her discharge is grossly unjust. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant did not have a mitigating medical or behavioral health condition for the offense (AWOL from January to April 2001). There are no military medical electronic records to support applicants’ report of receiving psychological treatment. There is no evidence to support claim of Military Sexual Trauma, threats of rape or bodily harm, physical and emotional abuse, or negative treatment that occurred due to homosexuality. Counseling statements and CID report indicate desertion and do not support claim of MST. Based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no behavioral health condition as mitigating for her offense of being AWOL and being separated from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 August 2016, 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: 30 January 2002 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: The applicant voluntarily requested a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provision of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, on 27 April 2001. (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, with one specification (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 April 2001 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 3 January 2002 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 10 August 2000 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-2 / None / 1 years, 2 months, and 11 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Charge Sheet (DA Form 458), dated 25 April 2001, reflects the applicant was being charged with violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, (AWOL). U.S. Army Crime Records Center Memorandum, dated 20 July 2016, reflects they have no files pertaining to the applicant, which can be considered a “no record” response for USACIDC records pursuant to the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act. i. Lost Time: 100 days (AWOL, 8 January 2001 – 17 April 2001) j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online Application, dated 26 March 2015; DD Form 214; and a License to marry in Iowa. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has graduated from college and is legally married to a wonderful woman. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade her under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and 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. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant contends that she was a good Soldier abused by her fellow service members every day and this why she feels her discharge is grossly unjust. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs. This presumption 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 in this case and the application contains no documentation or further corroborating evidence in support of the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends that she was threatened with physical and emotionally abuse on a daily basis. She informed her chain of command, but the taunts and threats to her personal safety continued. 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. Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what she believes was a grossly unjust discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official 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 3 August 2016, 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: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: NA AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable 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 OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police – PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150007863 4