1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 7 May 2015 b. Date Received: 5 June 2015 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, she would like an upgrade for the purpose of being able to reenlist. The applicant contends that, at the time of her enlistment, she was young, had a problem with authority, and was not disciplined enough to understand just what she gave up at the time. Now she is older and mature, has three children, and fully understands what is important and that her successes determines her legacy. She is more mature now and enrolled in school for Medical Assisting. She is now fully vested and looking to return to Active Duty. She is well aware of how hard she will have to work to prove herself to show that she can be a better Soldier and is willing to take that chance. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, there was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a nexus between a behavioral health or medical condition and the misconduct which led to the applicant’s separation from the Army. No Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) records available. No behavioral health conditions were reported on Medical Examination from January 2000. Mental Status Examination from December 2000 revealed a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, in which the applicant was psychiatrically cleared. An Adjustment Disorder does not explain or directly mitigate misconduct that led to separation action. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 26 January 2001 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 January 2001 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: damaged government property (26 July 2000); lied to a noncommissioned officer (2 August 2000); failed to be at her appointed place of duty on diverse occasions (8 August 2000, 15 September 2000, 27 October 2000, 28 November 2000 and 30 November 2000); was insubordinate in conduct towards a noncommissioned officer (18 September 2000); disrespectful in language and gestures towards a noncommissioned officer (1 November 2000); failed to obey a lawful command (2 November 2000); and, disrespectful in language and gestures towards a commissioned officer (10 November 2000). (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 January 2001 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 11 January 2001 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 24 January 2000 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 85 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-3 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 1 year and 3 months d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 10 November 2000, for being disrespectful in deportment towards a noncommissioned officer, by making facial gestures, rolling her eyes, and sighing heavily while at the position of parade rest. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $263.00, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated between 27 July 2000 and 30 November 2000, for failing to be at her appointed place of duty on several occasions, willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer, being disrespectful and malingering, not keeping her chain of command informed, providing misleading information, phone harassment, stabbing card table in day room, and notification of separation for a pattern of misconduct. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 December 2000, shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for an adjustment disorder and disturbance of conduct; chronic. However, it was determined at the time the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. The applicant was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriated by her command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application, dated 7 May 2015, and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is enrolled in school for Medical Assisting and is scheduled to graduate within a year. 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the documents and the issues submitted with the application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. The applicant contends that, at the time of her enlistment, she was young, had problems with authority, and lacked discipline. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and the applicant is to be commended for her accomplishment. The applicant expressed her desire for an upgrade of her discharge for the purpose of being able to reenlist. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 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 19 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/Issue a New Separation Order: 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: No Change 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 AR20150009850 4