1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 March 2017 b. Date Received: 16 March 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, the discharge was inequitable, because it was based on a single incident. The applicant never had any negative counseling or actions prior to the incident. The applicant's NCO in charge also added dates, indicating that the applicant had not reported for extra duty. The applicant believes the Article 15 punishment was more than enough. At the time, the applicant was pregnant and was denied the chance to complete the remaining seven months of an enlistment contract. The applicant has learned from the mistake and is in the process of moving on and trying to better oneself. The applicant has a Family to support now. The applicant is trying to further education to provide a better life for a son. The applicant completed a medical assistant certification through community college and is currently employed with an urgent care clinic. An upgrade would allow the applicant to continue medical school using educational benefits. The applicant served honorably, except for the single incident that led to discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 December 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 27 June 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 June 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 26 November 2014 and 22 November 2014, the applicant disobeyed a lawful order of CPT R.S. She failed to report to her appointed place of duty on several occasions, between 19 December 2013, and 13 January 2014. She was absent without leave between 10 January 2014 and 13 January 2014. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 11 June 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 June 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 August 2011 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 2 years, 10 months, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 19 December 2013, for disobeying her commissioned officer on two separate occasions on 26 November 2013, and 22 November 2013. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $758 pay per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty, and 45 days of restriction (suspended). Report of Result of Trial with its associated documents, dated 27 January 2014, indicates that by a summary court-martial, the applicant was found guilty of four specifications of violating Article 86, UCMJ, for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on three separate occasions on 13 January 2014, 20 December 2013, and 19 December 2013, and absenting herself from her unit on 10 January 2014, and remained absent until 13 January 2014. The sentence consisted of a forfeiture of $1,010 pay per month for one month. Negative counseling statements for being processed for an involuntary separation; failing to be at her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; having a no- contact order imposed; disobeying her commissioned officer; and breaking the no-contact order. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 February 2014, provided no diagnosis and the applicant was cleared for an administrative separation action or any other administrative actions deemed necessary by her command. Physical Profile, dated 11 April 2014, indicates the applicant was on profile for pregnancy. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 3 days (AWOL on 10 January 2014 to 12 January 2014) / The applicant returned to her unit. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 7 March 2017, with self-authored statement; Charge Sheet; Staff Duty Journal Log; and a character reference statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, she completed her medical assistant certification through a community college, and she is currently employed with an urgent care clinic. 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. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. 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. The applicant compromised the special trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of her service that ultimately caused her discharge from the Army. 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 her discharge was based on a single incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because it was based on a single incident and her NCO in-charge also added dates that reflected she had not reported for her extra duty, when records showed she did. 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 was 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 sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow her to receive the GI Bill educational benefits. However, eligibility for veterans' 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 third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance and character. However, the person providing the character reference statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of her service prior to these incidents, the Board can find that her complete period of service was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of her characterization of service. The available 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 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 19 December 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 a 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 / 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 AR20170004604 1