1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 December 2016 b. Date Received: 30 December 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, her discharge was unfair after being faithful and serving her country. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 6 April 2018, 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 5 March 2014 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 10 February 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for her discharge; she stole two pairs of gloves, one Nike t-shirt, two dresses and one pair of pants from AAFE (29 March 2013); and she committed larceny again by stealing a ladies E1 LCD Sports Watch from AAFES (22 October 2013). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20- February 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 July 2012 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 years / HS graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 1 year, 7 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 3 April 2013, revealed that the applicant was under investigation for larceny of AAFES property $100 and over, on post. CG Article 15, dated 25 April 2013, for stealing two pairs of gloves, one Nike t-shirt, two dresses, one pair of pants, of a value of about $100, the property of AAFES (29 March 2013); reduction to PV2 / E-2, extra duty for and restriction for 14 days and an oral reprimand. Military Police Report, dated 30 October 2013, relates the applicant was under investigation for larceny of AAFES property less than $100, shoplifting, on post. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 November 2013, shows that the applicant was screened for mTBl and PTSD, both screens were negative. She did not present with any symptoms of depression which are not considered normal ups and downs. She was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and had the mental capacity to participate in the board proceedings. CG Article 15, dated 21 November 2013, for stealing a Ladies E1 LCD Sports Watch SKU# 8670247288, of a value of $19.95, the property of AAFES (22 October 2013); reduction to PVT / E-1. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct; monthly, being flagged, being overweight, notification of separation action, removal of flag, mental health referral, monthly and integration counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 20 December 2013, indicates the applicant cited chronic problems with impulse control disorder and an adjustment disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); applicant's statement; three support statements; police records check; letter of appreciation; OMPF documents (41 pages). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted 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. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her 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. By the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 seeks relief contending, her discharge was unfair after being faithful and serving her country. 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 this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. They all recognize her good conduct after leaving the Army; 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 6 April 2018, 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. Change SPD Code to: No Change f. Change RE Code 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 AR20170003858 3