1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 January 2016 b. Date Received: 19 January 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 change to her narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that multiple leaders, to include a retired COL (Tracy Farrell), who worked with her and witnessed her caliber of service highly recommended she receive an honorable discharge. She contends she was told by a COL that worked at the Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) who was assisting her with tracking the finalization of her resignation request on multiple occasions that her Commanding General (General Dorman) recommended to the board that her characterization of service be Honorable. She does not understand why the DASA did not honor his request (and those of multiple leaders under him). She resigned and her DD Form 214 should reflect her resignation as her separation code. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 October 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24 / Chapter 4-2b and 4-24a(1) / BNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 January 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 1 November 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was required to show cause for retention on Active Duty under the provision of AR 600-8-24, due to misconduct for; engaging in an inappropriate relationship with SSGT J. F. She was married at that time and knew that SSGT F. was married to a noncommissioned officer in her unit. She traveled to Maui with SSGT F. between 5-8 June 2014 in violation of the 8th TSC Leave and Pass policy. She gave a false official statement to the Investigating Officer regarding her travel to Maui. She also exchanged hundreds of personal phone calls and text messages with SSGT F. For her actions, she received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, which was filed in her Army Military Human Resources Record. (3) Legal Consultation Date: On 30 December 2014, the applicant having been considered for elimination voluntarily tendered her resignation from the Army pursuant to the provision of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4 in lieu of elimination proceedings On 10 July 2015, the applicant in accordance with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) memorandum dated 30 June 2015, voluntarily and unconditionally tendered her resignation from the Army pursuant to the provision of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, in lieu of further elimination proceedings. (4) GCMCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: 12 February 2015 / Honorable (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board Recommendation: The Board reviewed the applicant's resignation in lieu of elimination and did not accept her resignation. On 30 June 2015, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) directed that the applicant's case be returned to the General Officer Show Cause Authority. In accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-20i(3), and directed a Board of Inquiry be conducted, unless the applicant submitted an unconditional resignation in lieu of elimination. On 16 December 2015, having reviewed the unconditional resignation in lieu of elimination submitted by the applicant, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) accepted her resignation and directed that she be discharged from the United States Army with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. The elimination was based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction (Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 December 2015, accepted request for resignation / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Term of Service: 5 May 2011 / NIF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 33 / MBA / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-2 / 42B, Human Resources Officer / 5 years, 2 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 19 October 2010 to 4 May 2011 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii /None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 5 May 2011 to 9 October 2012, Best Qualified 10 October 2012 to 9 October 2013, Best Qualified 10 October 2013 to 9 October 2014, Not Qualified 10 October 2014 to 20 September 2015, Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Informal AR 15-6 Investigation Finding and Recommendations to include supporting documents, dated 21 July 2014. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 5 September 2014 for engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a noncommissioned officer who was married to a noncommissioned officer in her unit. She gave false official statement to the investigating officer regarding her travel to Maui and she exchanged hundreds of personal phone calls and text messages with the noncommissioned officer. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 February 2015, which indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. She was cleared by behavioral health for separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application and separation packet with includes letters of support and evaluation reports. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 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 officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1), unacceptable conduct. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to her narrative reason for discharge. The applicant's 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant diminished the quality of her service which led to the reason for her discharge. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. Further, the applicant's record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant seeks relief contending, that multiple leaders who worked with her and witnessed her caliber of service highly recommended she receive an honorable discharge, she was recommended by her Commanding General for a characterization of service of Honorable. She does not understand why the DASA did not honor his request (and those of multiple leaders under him). The applicant's contentions were noted; however, it should be noted that the separation authority was not bound by the recommendations as to the characterization of service. Evidence shows the separation authority after reviewing the applicant's separation packet and considering all matters, directed that the applicant's service be characterized as general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends she resigned and her DD Form 214 should reflect her resignation as her separation code. The applicant was separated under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions) as approved by the separation authority. 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 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 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 11 October 2017, 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 AR20160002727 1