1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 November 2016 b. Date Received: 22 December 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she desires to better herself through education and desires to use the GI Bill. She states, at the time of her discharge she was not mentally prepared to accept the decision. She was struggling financially and in her personal life as a single mother of three. She was on the overweight program and she was dealing with insomnia and a tremendous amount of stress and she believed she had nowhere to turn and opted for the easy way out. She states, it was always her plan to reenlist and she deeply regrets her decision to separate from the military. Due to the lack of leadership and counsel within her company, she had no one to help her process her options and to make a healthy decision for her and her family. When she realized what she had agreed to, she turned to a military psychiatrist, who reached out to her command on the applicant's behalf. She states, that the decision was already made and her commander would not overturn the decision. Since her discharge, she has tried her hardest to better himself. She has married and is a stay at home parent. Her time at home allows her more opportunities to volunteer and give back to the community. She has started an outreach program that helps families impacted by teen pregnancy and teaches purity to young girls. She has revived her church's dance team and she travels ministering through dance. She wants to continue to grow and contribute greatly to her community. She believes if she could go back to school to obtain her degree, she would be able to fulfill that desire. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, including the applicant's case files, AHLTA and JLV.AHLTA notes indicate applicant was diagnosed with Insomnia while on active duty. Her PTSD and TBI screens were negative. VA records contain no information regarding applicant. Based on the available information, the applicant has no mitigating behavioral health disorders. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 23 March 2018, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, post- service accomplishments, OBH diagnosis and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 May 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 March 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 9 June 2011, she was found to be driving on a suspended license on Fort Stewart, Georgia; and. On 7 February 2012, she was given a traffic citation for not having a driver's license. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 2 April 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 April 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 June 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 113 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 3 years, 11 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 9 June 2011, reflects the applicant was taken into custody for Improper Backing (On Post); Driving on Suspended Registration (On Post); and, Driving on Suspended License (On Post). Hinesville Police Department, Incident Report, dated 7 February 2012, reflects the applicant was arrested for: Suspended License; Driving Vehicle with Suspended Registration; and, No License. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 7 March 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; a self-authored letter; and, five character statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: She states, she volunteers and gives back to her community. She has started an outreach program and she has revived her church's dance team and she travels ministering through dance. 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 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. 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 he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends that her leadership did not provide her with any counsel at the time of separation and she believed that she had nowhere to turn. However, 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 applicant contends that she was having personal 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 that an upgrade of her discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize her good conduct. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 23 March 2018, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, post-service accomplishments, OBH diagnosis and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a e. Change SPD Code to: Change SPD Code to JKN f. Change RE Code to: No Change to RE Code 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 AR20170000954 4