1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 February 2018 b. Date Received: 28 February 2018 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, the discharge was based on an isolated incident in the midst of a very difficult divorce. The applicant's husband, another service member, were separated and when they battled over who their daughter would stay with, the husband accused the applicant of adultery. The applicant was not aware at the time, the separation did not legally justify the applicant starting a new relationship. The applicant states, everyone involved in the situation was punished and the applicant was the only one kicked out to make an example of the applicant with a general discharge. The applicant was an upstanding Soldier, leader and excellent in the MOS, who had won broadcast awards for Anti-terrorism commercials. The Commander personally asked the applicant to narrate every Change of Command Ceremony and was trusted and respected enough to conduct one-on-one interviews with leaders such as the Sergeant Major of the Army, along with celebrities that came to Germany. The applicant established SOPs for incoming broadcasters and maintained the United States Army homepage for six months by learning web design and formatting. The applicant played an active role in the community prior to becoming married, winning two volunteer of the year awards in high school and later volunteering in the BOSS program in Germany. The applicant took college classes online and was on the road to earning an Associate's Degree. The applicant always represented the Army's main core values in and out of uniform. The incident that inevitably ended a career was an embarrassment and in no way reelected the morals or beliefs, which the applicant upholds. Currently, the applicant is married to a disabled veteran, and they have very active roles in the American Legion Post 166. The applicant is the first women to join the American Legion Riders in the hometown. They volunteer at every American Legion event they can, along with being very active in Warrior Weekend events, which include stock shows, funerals, musters and more. The applicant is the youngest Legioner at the Post and tries to be an inspiration for fellow female Soldiers. The applicant and the husband conduct fellowship meetings with veterans and their wives who may be struggling with anything and to just talk about their week. During the week, the applicant is the office manager for a health clinic and is attending the Chiropractic College in Austin to become a certified Practitioner Assistant. The applicant's goal is to run the clinic as the Practitioner in Charge, in three to five years. Due to the financial obligations, the applicant had to discontinue further education last year and is not enrolled. The applicant is proud to have served the country and desires to have the discharge represent the applicant's pride. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 24 April 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: 12 March 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 1 February 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: She wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a man, not her husband, on divers occasions on or between 21 August 2010 and 21 October 2010. On one occasion, while her husband was in Afghanistan within the 21 August 2010 to 21 October 2010 time frame, she broadcasted, by video webcam, her and a man, not her husband, having sexual intercourse. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 February 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 February 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 July 2008 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 46R10, Broadcast Journalist / 2 years, 7 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 9 November 2010, for on or between 21 August 2010 and 21 October 2010, wrongfully commit indecent conduct, to wit: engage in sexual relations with a man, not her husband, over a web cam for her husband's viewing; and, on or between 21 August 2010 and 21 October 2010, wrongfully have sexual intercourse with Specialist A. G., a man not her husband. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended); and, extra duty for 30 days. Mental Status Report (memo), dated 29 November 2010, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; two Tuition Assistance letters; Award of Excellence certificate; Certificate of Training; Certificate of Achievement; Enlisted Record Brief; Credit Voucher; Membership Card The American Legion. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states she is married to a disabled veteran, and they have very active roles in the American Legion Post; where she the first women to join the American Legion Riders in her hometown. The applicant volunteers in her community, is the office manager for a health clinic and attends the Chiropractic College in Austin to become a certified Practitioner Assistant. 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 she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends the event that caused her discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends that other Soldiers who were involved with the incident, which led to her discharge were not were not discharged. 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 applicant contends she was discharged to be made an example of for others. 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. The applicant contends that she had good service. 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 is to be commended for her accomplishments. 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 24 April 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 AR20180003442 1