1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 13 December 2017 b. Date Received: 26 December 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 effect, was very young and naïve when the applicant joined the Army, but still very ambitious. The applicant's was to have a long lasting career in the Army and fulfill the dream of possibly becoming an officer. During military service, the applicant had made some mistakes and for which the applicant is remorseful and in no way depict the person the applicant is today. The applicant could have avoided the mistake, which led to discharge. The applicant forged a signature in order to obtain financial help for school. The applicant believed at the time, the applicant had no way out and taking a different route seemed like the best option. Now, the applicant wishes to have been able to think about the consequences of these actions before making the mistakes. The applicant's intentions were never to defraud the government in any way, but school was the first priority and believed the applicant had to do what the applicant could to save the scholastic activity. No matter what went on in the applicant's personal and military life, the applicant always maintained the responsibility to be on top of the studies. In hindsight, the applicant always wanted to do what was right, but at times had thoughts that deterred the applicant from a goal. The applicant is apologetic for the actions and has learned much as a person and as an adult. The applicant has now obtained both an Associates and Bachelor's degree in Human Resource Management. The applicant has purchased the first home and became a service representative with the Social Security Administration (SSA). A sense of embarrassment comes over the applicant when the applicant reminisces about the adolescent mistakes. The applicant believes an upgrade will benefit oneself and the family in countless ways and would give the applicant a sense of achievement. Working in the SSA has given the applicant more opportunities to show qualities and excel in the duties that the applicant used to perform while in the Army. The applicant has learned much and is grateful for the chance to assist the public. Since discharge, the applicant has gained humility and would like to continue to become a better person. The applicant wants to set a great example for the one-year old child and teach the child that one can learn from their mistakes. An upgrade would allow the applicant to excel and broaden one's horizons to explore other employment opportunities, which would be beneficial to the applicant both economically and emotionally. The applicant wants to continue to strive for greatness and learn more about oneself as the applicant goes forward. The applicant does not want the past mistakes to determine the outcome of the future. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder with anxiety/with depressed mood, Episodic Mood Disorder, and Major Depression. The applicant is 70% service-connected; 50% for Major Depressive Disorder from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with ADHD and Anxiety Disorder. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 February 2020, 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 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 15 October 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 July 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 4 and 5 March 2013, she forged the signature of LTC P, on a memorandum for record and a TA recoupment waiver form and on 27 March 2012, he violated a lawful general regulation and on 31 January 2012, she orally communicated indecent language. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 16 July 2013, the applicant waived her rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 July 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 May 2010 / 4 years, 10 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 3 years, 5 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Commander's Report, dated 17 July 2013, reflects the applicant received a FG Article 15, dated 14 May 2013, for one violation of Article 92, violating a lawful general regulation and one violation of Article 134, communicating indecent language. The punishment imposed was reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $878, suspended; extra duty for 45 days; restriction for 45 days; and oral reprimand. The applicant received a FG Article 15 on 15 May 2013, for two violations of Article 107, false official statement and two violations of Article 123, fraud. The punishment imposed was reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $949 pay for two months, suspended; extra duty for 45 days; restriction for 45 days; and oral reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; five character statements; self-authored statement; two certificates; two service award certificates; transcripts. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, he has earned her Bachelor's Degree and obtained employment with the SSA. 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, 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 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 he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends that he was very young and immature at the time. The record confirms the applicant's youth at the time of enlistment and an apparent lack of maturity. The record also shows the applicant's discrediting entries were incidents of a minor nature. While the applicant's misconduct and poor duty performance were a clear departure from acceptable Army standards, it appears the offenses were partially mitigated by youth and immaturity. 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge will allow her to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize her good performance either while in or after leaving the Army; 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. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 February 2020, 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 AR20180001166 1