1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 13 May 2018 b. Date Received: 16 May 2018 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 narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the file reflects the applicant committed larceny of $20 and falsified statements, which the applicant states is not true. The applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, but was not found guilty of all the charges and was only punished with extra duty. Separation proceedings were initiated before the applicant had completed extra duty and requested through the chain of command to speak with the brigade commander, but the applicant's voice was not being heard. The applicant has never stolen anything in life and does not have a civilian criminal record and does not want to have a criminal military record. The applicant was unaware this was in the record until it was brought to the applicant's attention by a recruiter and now wants to change the records. The applicant did not have any negative counseling's in basic training or in Advanced Individual Training (AIT), until the incident, which led to discharge. The applicant had already graduated AIT and was waiting to out-process and report to the first duty station, when a career was taken. The applicant further details the incident in a self-authored statement provided with the application. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 June 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 September 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 September 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Since she arrived at Fort Lee, Virginia to attend the 92Y course of instruction, she had shown a total disregard for military rules and regulations by failing to be at her appointed place of duty on multiple occasions, made a false official statement, stole about $21, and tried to impede an investigation. Due to the circumstances her retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 5 September 2017, the applicant waived her rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 September 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 January 2017 / 3 years, 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / Bachelor's Degree / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 9 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 22 June 2017, failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (3 June 2017). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $150 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 7 days. Law Enforcement Report - Final, dated 21 July 2017, reflects and investigation conducted by MPI (INV Main) through subject, victim, and witness interviews revealed that the applicant used PVT J's bank card to purchase food from the Jade Buffet. On 20 July 2017, at 1546 hours, SJA (CPT F) opined that there was sufficient evidence to believe the applicant committed larceny under Article 121, UCMJ and False Official Statement under Article 107 UCMJ. On 3 July 2017, the applicant called the MP Station impersonating PVT J and attempted to stop the investigation. On 3 July 2017, at 1145 hours, the applicant was advised of her legal rights, which she waived, and rendered a verbal statement confessing to calling the MP Station. On 20 July 2017, at 1546 hours, SJA (CPT F) opined that there is probable cause to believe that the applicant obstructed justice in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. FG Article 15, dated 1 August 2017, for making to Investigator K M, an official statement, to wit: "I have never ordered from Jade Garden and I paid cash for my meal", which statement was totally false (26 June 2017); steal money, of a value of about $20.95, the property of United Services Automobile Association (25 June 2017); and, wrongfully endeavor to impede an investigation, being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and/or being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces (3 July 2017). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $799 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Rehabilitation (memo), dated 29 August 2017, reflects: On 22 June 2017 the applicant received a Company Grade Article 15, for violating article 86 of the UCMJ on 3 June 2017. The applicant received a Field Grade Article 15, on 1 August 2017, for violating Article 107 of the UCMJ on 26 June 2017, violating Article 121 of the UCMJ on 25 June 2017, and violating Article 134 of UCMJ. The applicant had consistently shown that she had no interest in conforming to the expectations of a values-based Soldier. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 15 August 2015, 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. The applicant was diagnosed with: Psychosocial Stressors; Occupational Problems. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; self-authored statement; list of references. 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, paragraph 12b, pattern of misconduct. 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 narrative reason change. 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 narrative reason for the discharge should be changed because she has never stolen anything in her life. However, 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." 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 the references to stealing and making false statements should be removed from her military record. However, the applicant's request 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 she requested to speak with her brigade commander, but was not afforded the opportunity. 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 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 3 June 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 AR20180007900 2