1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 13 July 2017 b. Date Received: 18 July 2017 c. Counsel: 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 through counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, served for eight years, and earned numerous awards and decorations to include two combat deployments. The applicant was accused of having an intimate relationship with two sergeants, which the applicant denies, as there was no evidence to support it. The applicant alleges that there were improprieties during the Board of Inquiry (BOI) proceedings. The applicant's single indiscretion should be judged and characterized against the conduct of other officers, who did not have their service record blemished with stigma of a general discharge. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 December 2018, and by a 5- 0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post-service accomplishments, 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 narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 608-8-24, Paragraphs 4-2b / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 April 2016 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 October 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a substandard performance and paragraph-4-2b because of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction. She was notified of the following reasons for elimination; Substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand dated 23 April 2014 and referred Officer Evaluation Report for the period 1 February 2014 thru 12 May 2014, which were filed in her Army Military Human Resource Record; and Conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above referenced items. (3) Recommended Characterization: On 2 December 2014, the applicant submitted a request to resign in lieu of elimination conditioned upon receiving an honorable characterization of service On 2 June 2015, The Commanding General; Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and Fort Campbell, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, recommended the applicant's discharge from the Army with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). On 10 March 2016, The Commanding General; Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and Fort Campbell, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, recommended the applicant be eliminated from the service with an honorable characterization of service. (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF, government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. (5) Administrative Separation Board/BOI: On 3 March 2015, The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board has reviewed the Resignation in Lieu of Elimination tendered by the applicant. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) did not accept her resignation that she conditioned upon receiving no worse than an honorable discharge. The DASA direct the case be returned to the General Officer Show Cause Authority. In accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-24g, she (DASA) directed a Board of Inquiry be conducted, unless the applicant tendered an unconditional resignation in lieu of elimination. On 13 April 2015, the Board of Inquiry (BOI) convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The BOI recommended the applicant's separation from the US Army with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. The DASA determined the applicant would be involuntarily eliminated from the United States Army with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. This elimination is based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction (Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 March 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 July 2008 / 3 years / documentation extending the applicant's term of active duty service to her discharge date is not contained in the available record. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 years / College Graduate / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 14A, Air Defense Artillery / 7 years, 10 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR (Cadet), 11 January 2006 to 14 May 2008 / NA USAR, Appointment 2LT, 15 May 208 to 4 July 2008 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Bahrain, 1 October 2009 to 15 July 2010 / Afghanistan, 31 July 2012 to 22 May 2013 f. Awards and Decorations: BSM, ARCOM-3, AAM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: 15 November 2011 to 31 January 2014, Best Qualified 1 February 2014 to 12 May 2014, Not Qualified 13 May 2014 to 15 March 2016, Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An administrative General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 23 April 2014, for conduct unbecoming an officer by engaging in prohibited relationships with two noncommissioned officers. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); continuation of block 6 issues (five pages); BOI rebuttal (seven pages); Enclosures 1 6 and 9-15, support statements; Enclosure 7, Officer Record Brief; and Enclosure 8, Officer Evaluation Report; Legal Review of AR 15-6 Investigation; findings and recommendations of AR 15-6 Investigation (seven pages); AR 15-6 Investigation with associated documents (154 pages). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted 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. 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant's unacceptable conduct diminished the quality of her service below meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on active duty. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, she served for eight years, earned numerous awards and decorations to include two combat deployments. 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 applicant further contends, she was accused of having an intimate relationship with two sergeants which she denies and there was no evidence to support it. The BOI determined that the applicant did not engage in a prohibited relationship with a senior noncommissioned officer, SFC .P.G., between 1 August 2012 and 22 May 2013. However, it substantiated that the applicant engaged in a prohibited relationship with a noncommissioned officer under her command, SSG D.B., between 1 July 2013 and on or about 24 March 2014. This conduct constituted " misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, conduct unbecoming an officer, does not comport with the Army Values, and was detrimental to good order and discipline in the armed forces. The applicant also contends, that there were improprieties during the Board of Inquiry (BOI) proceedings. 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 there were improprieties during the Board of Inquiry (BOI) proceedings. The applicant additionally contends, her single indiscretion should be judged and characterized against the conduct of other officers, who did not have their service record blemished with stigma of a general discharge. 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. 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): None b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 December 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post-service accomplishments, 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 narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 11. 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 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 AR20170014604 5