1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 June 2017 b. Date Received: 30 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 a change to the narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the characterization of service is unjust and harsh. The applicant contends that an upgrade of discharge is a more accurate reflection of the time dedicated to upholding the mission of United States Army, not only as a former Non-Commissioned Officer, but as a dedicated, hardworking member of the community. The applicant contends that the unit, rather than endure the lengthy process of a Medical Evaluation Board for a service connected mental health injury with an "un-deployable Soldier", opted for a harsh administrative discharge. The applicant served as a stellar Soldier by always going above and beyond the call of duty. The applicant expedited joining the Non- Commissioned Officer ranks by maintaining the Army Physical Fitness Proficiency Badge; scoring no less than 90% on every recorded event. The applicant has also never received anything other than a 1/1 Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) rating. The applicant was responsible for accounting for and maintaining property valued at more than 80 million dollars. The applicant also trained, mentored, and instructed junior enlisted Soldiers as the Logistics and Supply SME (Subject Matter Expert) in the Brigade. The applicant attained 67 credit hours towards a B.A. degree in Military Studies at Columbus State University and is set to begin classes in the fall, but the discharge limits eligibility for VA Educational Benefits. The applicant believes that the reasons for discharge accounts for a very brief and minute period in an overall term of service. The abrupt move to a problematic company, the disparity in "Patterns of Misconduct" offenses and the haste of separation (SM had an additional year to serve), all demonstrate this point. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 February 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, contain erroneous entries. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 27, reentry code changed to 3 (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-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 28 June 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 April 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for failure to report to her place of duty on 16 November 2016; Wrongfully engaged in an inappropriate relationship with SFC M.D.F., from 13 October to 18 November 2016; Disobeyed a lawful command to have no contact with SFC M.D.F., on 18 December 2016; Was disrespectful to a senior noncommissioned officer on 18 November 2016; Physically controlled a vehicle in a reckless manner nearly striking a pedestrian Soldier on 18 November 2016; and Being Absent Without Leave during the periods (3-4 January 2017; 18-25 January 2017, and 30 January to 2 February 2017). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 May 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 June 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) It should be noted that the separation authority in considering whether to process the applicant through the physical disability system in lieu of separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, found that the applicant's medical condition was not a direct or substantial cause of her misconduct as outlined in the separation packet, and that other circumstances of the incident did not warrant disability processing instead of further processing under administrative separation provisions. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 May 2012 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / 3 Years College / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 5 years, 1 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA, Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: 1 January 2016 to 21 October 2016, Most Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Protective Order. Findings and Recommendations for Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 Investigation of Adultery between SFC F and the applicant, dated 14 December 2016. FG Article 15, dated 8 March 2017, for failure to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty on 16 November 2016, without authority, absent herself from her unit on three occasions (3 January 2017 until 4 January 2017, 18 January 2017 until 25 January 2017, and 30 January 2017 until 2 February 2017), was disrespectful in deportment towards 1SG R.R., a senior noncommissioned officer on 18 November 2016, physically controlled a vehicle, to wit: a passenger car in a reckless manner by speeding and nearly striking a pedestrian Soldier on 18 November 2016, wrongfully engaged in an inappropriate and intimate relationship with SFC M.D.F., a Soldier married to another, and at a time when she was married to another, by communicating through varied media, and in person, certain explicit language of a personal and sexual nature between 13 October 2016 and 18 November 2016, and disobeyed a lawful command from a commissioned officer to have no contact with SFC M.D.F., on 18 December 2016. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $1,216 pay, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days (suspended). Counseling statement for various acts of misconduct and performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for a total of 11 days: 1 day (3 January 2017 until 4 January 2017), 7 days (18 January 2017 until 25 January 2017), and 3 days (30 January 2017 until 2 February 2017) / surrendered on all occasions. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 December 2016, shows the applicant was diagnosed with Axis I for unspecified psychosis. It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. VA/DOD Joint Disability Evaluation Board Claim, dated 13 February 2017. Medical Evaluation Board-Narrative Summary, which makes reference to the applicant having been diagnosed with a major depressive disorder (with anxiety symptoms as part of diagnosis) on 15 March 2017. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 20 March 2017, shows the applicant was diagnosed for medical conditions with unspecified psychosis, medically unacceptable, IAW AR 40-501 Chapter 3-31 and Anxiety Disorder, medically unacceptable, IAW AR 40-501 Chapter 3- 33; and essential hypertension, allergic rhinitis, lower back pain, arthralgia left hip, and arthralgia left knee all medically acceptable. Mental Disorders (other than PTSD and Eating Disorders) Disability Benefits Questionnaire. Chronological Records of Medical Care. Medical documents from the Columbus Diagnostic Center. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; medical records assessment; summary of joint services transcript; acceptance letter to Columbus State University; enlisted record brief (ERB); Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecards and record fire scorecards; and NCO Evaluation Report (SGT). 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 14-12b 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, and 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. 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 her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to her narrative reason for discharge. 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. 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 was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635- 200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is "JKA," with a RE code of 3. 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 28, reentry code, entered in block 27, 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 appropriate RE code is 3. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. It should be noted; the service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, reentry code as 4. The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge by reason of pattern of misconduct. Soldiers processed for pattern of misconduct will be assigned an SPD Code of JKA and an RE Code of 3. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that her characterization of service is unjust and harsh. She contends that an upgrade of her discharge is a more accurate reflection of her time dedicated to upholding the mission of United States Army, not only as a former Non- Commissioned Officer, but as a dedicated, hardworking member of her community. She contends that her unit, rather than endure the lengthy process of a Medical Evaluation Board for a service connected mental health injury with an "un-deployable Soldier", opted for a harsh administrative discharge. She served as a stellar Soldier by always going above and beyond the call of duty. She expedited joining the Non-Commissioned Officer ranks by maintaining the Army Physical Fitness Proficiency Badge; scoring no less than 90% on every recorded event. She has also never received anything other than a 1/1 Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) rating. Her service, has accounted for and maintained property valued at more than 80 million dollars. She also trained, mentored, and instructed junior enlisted Soldiers as the Logistics and Supply SME (Subject Matter Expert) in her Brigade. She attained 67 credit hours towards a B.A. degree in Military Studies at Columbus State University and is set to begin classes in the fall, but her discharge limits eligibility for VA Educational Benefits. She believes that the reasons for her discharge accounts for a very brief and minute period in her overall term of service. Her abrupt move to a problematic company, the disparity in "Patterns of Misconduct" offenses and the haste of her separation (SM had an additional year to serve), all demonstrate this point. The applicant's contentions were noted; 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 and the applicant is to be commended on her accomplishments. 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 this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that her discharge was unjust and harsh. In fact, the applicant's incidents of misconduct, Articles 15 and counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct. As noted by the separation authority; in considering whether to process the applicant through the physical disability system in lieu of separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, found that the applicant's medical condition was not a direct or substantial cause of her misconduct as outlined in the separation packet, and that other circumstances of the incident did not warrant disability processing instead of further processing under administrative separation provisions. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. 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 his overall service record. 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 20 February 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. However, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, contain erroneous entries. The Board directed the following administrative corrections and reissue of the applicant's DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority: a. block 27, reentry code changed to 3 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: Yes 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 / RE-3 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 AR20170010139 1