1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 June 2017 b. Date Received: 26 June 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, was just shy of serving three years and about seven months short of the ETS date. The applicant was a good Soldier who wanted to make it a career. The applicant never received a negative counseling statement, nor an Article 15 action until receiving the discharge. The NCOs and 1SG spoke on the applicant's behalf, but the issue was raised to a higher level. The initial separation proceedings under paragraph 14-12b did not pass TDS. Upon a third attempt, the separation was changed to paragraph 14-12c. Trial Defense Services informed the applicant that due to technicality, they believed that the issue should be a company grade Article 15, and be given a chance to move on with a career. Since discharge, the applicant's unemployment application was denied. The applicant is unable to use the GI Bill. The applicant cannot reenlist for 24 months because of the discharge, nor obtain a state employment. The applicant is a single mother of two and would like to get life back on track. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 August 2019, 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: 17 March 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 October 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: In May 2016, at a civilian court hearing, the applicant admitted that she was currently residing with SPC M.R., an action that violated a Military Protective Order issued her on 26 April 2016, by CPT A.J., her commander. On 24 May 2016, the applicant violated the Military Protective Order issued to her on 26 April 2016, by CPT A.J., her commander, by wrongfully having contact with SPC M.R. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 25 October 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 February 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (An initial separation action suspended on 29 November 2016, was vacated because the applicant repeatedly violated a Military Protective Order, and falsely presented SPC M.R. as her first sergeant to her civilian landlord.) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 September 2014 / 3 years, 27 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / GED / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 91B10 Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 2 years, 6 months, 15 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: Memorandum, dated 1 July 2016, subject: AR 15-6 Finding and Recommendations, with its associated investigative documents, rendered by an investigating officer (IO), who was appointed to investigate a suspected adulterous relationship between SPC M.R. and the applicant. The memorandum summarized the IO's findings and recommendations. The IO found sufficient evidence supported the accusation that SPC M.R. committed adultery with the applicant, who was a married woman, and that both parties violated Article 92, UCMJ, for failing to obey an order by not adhering to a military protective order imposed on them. The IO recommended both parties receive Article 15 actions for violating Articles 92 and 134, UCMJ, and that both parties be transferred to different organizations. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 18 August 2016, providing no diagnosis, commented that the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by her command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application. 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 requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant's available record of service and and the issues 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 incidents 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of her service prior to the incidents of misconduct, 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 it took a third attempt to process her discharge, and the trial defense service believed the incidents that led to her discharge should have been a company grade Article 15 action. 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 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 evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant indirectly expressed her desire to rejoin the Service, to have better job opportunities, and the benefits of the GI Bill. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, 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. Insofar as the applicant's desire to reenlist, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on AR 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant requests to change the reason for her separation; however, the narrative reason for her separation is governed by specific directives and as approved by the separation authority. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is JKQ. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 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 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 16 August 2019, 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 AR20170009858 1