1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 29 December 2016 b. Date Received: 26 January 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for her discharge, including changing the reentry code to RE-1. The counsel on behalf of the applicant, is seeking relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, she served honorably for over three years. She was a young model Officer with unlimited potential. A perception that she was having an inappropriate relationship with an NCO and violating a military protective order led to her discharge. Such relationship was never substantiated; however, the applicant admitted to its appearance, and accepted and took responsibility. She also never violated the protective order. There was no evidence, other than an opinion and conjecture that was presented against her. Her current discharge was severe, excessive, and unfair, given the nature of the alleged offense and the other party being allowed to remain in the Army and was subsequently promoted. She was known for her work ethic with no disciplinary issues. Numerous references attest to her good character and professionalism. She received numerous awards and honors. She desires to rejoin and return to active duty, but her current discharge prohibits her from doing so. In the interest of justice, it is appropriate and warranted for the applicant to be reevaluated and reconsidered. Her punishment was severe, disproportionate, unfair, and continues to harm her future unnecessarily. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 July 2017, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include her combat service, and the command's arbitrary and capricious actions and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Paragraphs 4-2b / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 40 January 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on Active Duty, pursuant to the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b(4), 4-2b(5), 4-2b(8), and 4- 2c(5), for making a misstatement of fact in an official statement; conduct, moral, or professional dereliction; conduct unbecoming an officer; and receiving a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand. The specific reasons for elimination are: She received a General Officer Letter of Reprimand, dated 18 December 2013, for an inappropriate relationship with a married enlisted Soldier. Making a misstatement of fact in an official statement to a superior commissioned officer by stating that she never violated a Military Protection Order. For acts of personal misconduct indicated by the above-referenced General Officer Letter of Reprimand and by disobeying a Military Protective Order. For conduct unbecoming of an officer as indicated by the above-referenced General Officer Letter of Reprimand. For the aforementioned General Officer Letter of Reprimand being filed in the performance section of her Army Military Human Resource Record. (3) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (However, on 31 January 2014 she elected to submit a statement on her behalf, and on 10 February 2014, she submitted a rebuttal statement, requesting to be retained on active duty.) (4) Chain of Command Recommendations: Elimination with General (Under Honorable Conditions (5) GCMCA Recommendation Date / Characterization: 8 April 4 / Honorable (6) DA Ad Hoc Review Board Recommendation: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (7) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 May 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 1 June 2011 / 3 years or an expiration date of 1 June 2014, OBV (Obligated Volunteer) b. Age at Appointment / Education / GT Score: 22 / BA Degree / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-2 / 67A 5Q, Health Services; 5P, Health Services Administrative / 4 years, 9 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG (24 August 2009 to 30 August 2009) / NA ROTC (31 August 2009 to 20 May 2011) / NA USAR (21 May 2011 to 31 May 2011) / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (15 November 2012 to 28 July 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AAM; NDSM; ACM-CS; GWOTSM; ASR; NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: Four OERs rendered during period under current review: 1 November 2011 thru 31 August 2012, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 1 September 2012 thru 1 March 2013, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 2 March 2013 thru 30 October 2013, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 31 October 2013 thru 31 March 2014 (Referred OER), Satisfactory Performance, Promote h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for imposition of a non-contact order. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 14 December 2013, with its associated documents, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for having an inappropriate relationship with a married enlisted Soldier in her unit; violating CJTF-101, General Order No. 1; violating a "No Contact Order" from her commander; and providing a false official statement. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 29 December 2016, and attorney-authored brief, dated 12 February 2016, with list of attached exhibits A through L. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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 enlisted Soldiers 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 to change the narrative reason for her discharge, including changing the reentry code to RE-1. 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 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 her service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that she 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 contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed to show that she was discharged on the basis of "Completion of Required Service," and to change the reentry code to "RE-1." However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of AR 600- 8-24, Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2b, with a general (under conditions discharge) 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 "JNC." 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. Further, according to AR 635-8, paragraph 5-6 (Rules for completing the DD form 214), paragraph 5-6aa, Block 27, Reentry Code, AR 601-210 determines reentry eligibility and provides regulatory guidance on reentry codes. [However, these codes are not applicable to officers, USMA cadets who fail to graduate, or to RC Soldiers being separated for other than cause. Accordingly, the applicant's request to change the reentry code is inapplicable in her case. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of her service prior to the incidents of unacceptable conduct, the Board can find that her complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of her characterization of service and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because the basis for which she was discharged were never substantiated, and there was no evidence that she violated the protective order, and the resulting punishment was severe, disproportionate, unfair, and continues to harm her future unnecessarily. Her contentions were carefully considered; 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 sufficient evidence to support the contention that she may have been unjustly discharged. The attorney-authored brief on behalf of the applicant does not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant contends that she was a young officer at the time of the discharge. 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 officers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant contends that another Soldier with similar offenses was not discharged or allowed to stay in the Army. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. The applicant made reference to the third party statements provided with the application that speaks highly of the applicant's performance and character. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): Letter of support - MAJ S. - 3 pages Letter of Support - SFC P. = 2 pages b. The applicant presented the following additional contentions. Change SPD code. Change RE code. (Note: Officers are not issued RE codes on their DD - 214) c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None. 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 July 2017, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include her combat service, and the command's arbitrary and capricious actions and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change f. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: 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 AR20170001025 6