1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 September 2017 b. Date Received: 13 September 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an uncharacterized discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change; a reentry (RE) code change; and, immediate reentry to Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, was not in an Entry-Level Status (ELS) upon discharge and therefore should not have been subject to ELS standards. The applicant served a total of six months and 14 days, or 198 consecutive days with no time lost. Specifically, Army Regulation 635-200, provides in pertinent part, that for RA Soldiers, ELS is the first 180 days of continuous Active Duty. While the Board presumes Government regularity in the discharge process, given that Soldiers who complete the first 180 days of continuous service are not held to ELS standards, it is the applicant's contention that the current Characterization of Service, Separation Authority verbiage, Separation Code, RE Code, and Narrative Reason for Separation are both improper and inequitable. The applicant objects to the characterization of service because of being processed out of Active Duty on improper standards pertaining to ELS. The applicant was not afforded the equitable opportunity of completing the required Active Duty service under the military contract. In the matters of both impropriety and inequity, the applicant requests to be immediately reactivated to Active Duty service or that the other requested relief be granted. The applicant states, even if the argument were to be made that other items under the Chapter 11 clause remained applicable, each of these matters would reflect a Soldier who was in ELS. The applicant was not in ELS, served more than 180 days of continuous Active Duty service, and therefore entry-level performance standards did not apply. As such, the separation authority narrative led to a discharge that was approved by an improper separation authority in the chain of command, thus the discharge was improper. Army Regulation 635-5-1, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, lists Separation Code JGA as applying to "Entry Level Performance and Conduct." The applicant has found information elsewhere, which advises that JGA applies to "Entry level status performance and conduct or entry level status performance - pregnancy." At no time had the applicant ever been pregnant. Without objective evidence to support the notion that the applicant tested positive for pregnancy, the current Separation Code is improper. Military records will reflect that at no point during the military service was the applicant found to have tested positive for pregnancy. Even in the absence of consideration for pregnancy, the separation code JGA relates to "Entry Level Performance and Conduct." Therefore entry-level performance standards did not apply. The applicant objects to the RE code of "3." The applicant was separated for improper standards pertaining to ELS and was not afforded the equitable opportunity of completing the enlistment. Per Army Regulation 601-210, an RE-3 code, "Applies to: Person who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waiverable. Eligibility: Ineligible unless a waiver is granted." As such, the RE code is both improper and inequitable. The applicant states while receiving medical assistance from an Army qualified health provider, on 12 August 2014, it was verbalized to her that the applicant could receive a chapter discharge which would allow the applicant to "recover and return to the Army in six months." As a good faith effort, making an informed decision based on the expertise of an Army healthcare provider, the applicant followed the recommendation of Major B only to find that the advice was erroneous and therefore improper, whether intentional or not. If the applicant had not received false information, the applicant would have contested the Chapter 11 process altogether. In this matter, objective evidence reveals that the presumption of regularity is effectively challenged. Major B erred when providing medical advice that the applicant followed, which resulted in discharge and subsequent inability to rejoin the Army as a means of continuing service. The applicant states, the official separation memorandum issued by the command was dated 3 September 2014, which confirms that the military command initiated separation procedures on the 184th day on active duty service. The applicant received official separation orders from the command on 9 September 2014, which further confirms that the military command initiated separation procedures on the 190th day on active duty service, which supports the contention that the applicant was not in ELS when the military command initiated separation action. The applicant states that the request for relief does not relate to obtaining employment, veteran's benefits, or educational assistance, as the applicant has been able to seek and maintain gainful employment despite the current discharge. Currently, the applicant maintains a service-connection through the VA and has been able to finance necessary education relating to the career field via the process of burdensome student loan debt acquisition. Rather, this request for relief strictly relates to matters of propriety and equity and remains in the best interest of justice overall. The applicant provides a self-authored statement and further details the contentions and refers to other ADRB decisions to support the request for relief. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 April 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: Entry Level Performance and Conduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 11 / JGA / RE-3 / Uncharacterized b. Date of Discharge: 17 September 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 August 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: She had exhibited unsatisfactory conduct that was not conducive to good order and discipline in the Armed Forces. (3) Recommended Characterization: Uncharacterized (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 September 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 September 2014 / Uncharacterized 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 March 2014 / 3 years, 32 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / Some College / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / None / 6 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; and, DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, she maintains employment and has pursued her education. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-9 contains guidance on entry level separations. It states a separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if, at the time separation action is initiated, the Soldier has less than 180 days of continuous active duty service. Chapter 11 of AR 635-200 provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status (ELS). An uncharacterized service description is normally granted to Soldiers separating under this chapter. A general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions and an honorable discharge (HD) is rarely ever granted. An HD may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. 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 "JGA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, entry level performance and conduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JGA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her uncharacterized discharge to honorable and a narrative reason change; a reentry (RE) code change; and, immediate reentry to Active Duty. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. A general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions is not authorized under ELS conditions and an honorable discharge (HD) is rarely ever granted. An HD may be given only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. Further, the uncharacterized description of service accurately reflects the applicant's overall record of service. An uncharacterized discharge is neither positive nor negative and it is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier's military service. It merely means that the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. The applicant requests that she be immediately reinstated to Active Duty. However, the applicant's requested change does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed because she was not in ELS. However, evidence of the record, reflects the applicant acknowledged the notification of intent of separation on 28 August 2014. At the time of the notification, the applicant had a total of 177 days of consective active duty service, therefore the applicant was in ELS. Further, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 11, AR 635-200 with an uncharacterized discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Entry Level Performance and Conduct," and the separation code is "JGA." 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 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 regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends that the SPD code of "JGA" also indicates a Soldier, who was pregnant and at no time did she ever test posive for pregancy. However, the governing regulation, in pertinent part, states Soldiers in ELS status who become pregnant will be processed under Chapter 11, AR 635-200. As stated in the previous paragraph, the appropriate SPD code is "JGA." The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 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 contends she followed the advice of physician, which was in error and led to her discharge. However, 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 her overall service record. Further, 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 applicant contends that the Board has granted relief to other Soldiers with similar circumstances. However, 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 Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 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 17 April 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 AR20170016300 1