1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 October 2016 b. Date Received: 18 November 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. The Board would consider her for a possible upgrade as instructed by Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.28. The applicant requests to upgrade her under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, she was being processed for separation under the family care plan; however, it was changed to misconduct at the last minute for an offense from a previous unit and a year prior. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 January 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, contains a certain erroneous entry. The Board directed the following administrative correction and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 27, reentry eligibility code changed to 3. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-4 / Under Other than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 10 March 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 January 2006 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: having numerous AWOL between 3 August 2004 and 25 October 2005; failing to pay spousal support; committing adultery; writing a bad check in the amount of $84.70 to the post commissary; and being placed in civilian confinement from 16 July 2005 to 18 July 2005, on assault charges. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 January 2006 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Unconditionally waived per the separation authority (the GCMCA) (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 10 February 2006 / Under Other than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 September 2004 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42L10, Human Resources Specialist / 4 years, 3 months, 27 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (14 November 2001 to 14 September 2004) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AGCM; NDSM; GOWTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for writing back checks; committing adultery; being responsible for pay spousal support on numerous occasions; failing to be at her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; being AWOL on several occasions; being insubordinate towards an NCO; making a false official statement; and failing to sign out on leave. Memorandum, dated 25 April 2005, subject: Request for Commander's Inquiry (Nonsupport, AR 608-99), rendered by an IG, requested an inquiry into an allegation of failure to provide financial support to family members of the applicant. Six DA Forms (Personnel Actions) 4187, reflecting the following documented entries on the applicant's duty status: dated 6 July 2005, indicates the applicant's duty status changed from PDY to AWOL, effective 6 July 2005 dated 12 July 2005, indicates the applicant's duty status changed from AWOL to PDY, effective 12 July 2005 dated 16 July 2005, indicates the applicant's duty status changed from PDY to Civilian Confinement, effective 16 July 2005 dated 18 July 2005, indicates the applicant's duty status changed from Civilian Confinement to PDY, effective 18 July 2005 dated 25 July 2005, indicates the applicant's duty status changed from PDY to AWOL, effective 23 July 2005 dated 25 July 2005, indicates the applicant's duty status changed from AWOL to PDY, effective 25 July 2005 CG Article 15, dated 21 July 2005, for being AWOL on 6 July 2005, and remained absent until 12 July 2005. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $362, and 13 days of extra duty and restriction. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated in September 2005, cleared the applicant for any administrative action deemed appropriate by her command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None cited on current DD Form 214 / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 10 July 2016; Honorable Discharge certificated, dated 14 September 2004; Oath of reenlistment certificate, dated 15 September 2004; three certificates of achievement; ARCOM certificate; graduate of course certificate; and Nurse Aide Program certificate, dated 2 July 2010. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided with the application. 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed, in pertinent part, by DoDI 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. Accordingly, the applicant requests an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant's available 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 military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the serious incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of her service. 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, such that she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because she was being processed for separation under the family care plan, but it was changed to misconduct at the last minute. 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 any evidence to support the contention that she may have been unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence sufficient has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant's documentary evidence reflects her achievements while on active duty and her post-service accomplishments. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of her service prior to the serious incidents of misconduct, and her post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that her complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of her characterization of service. 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 26 January 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, contains a certain erroneous entry. The Board directed the following administrative correction and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 27, reentry eligibility code changed to 3. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a new DD-214: Yes 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 SPD Code / Change RE code to 3 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 AR20160019037 2