1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 23 July 2018 b. Date Received: 25 July 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of an under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, an upgrade will make the applicant eligible for government jobs. There are government jobs that are the exactly the same as the one the applicant does as a contractor, which provide more security and growth and provide the opportunity of a second chance to use the military time towards retirement. The applicant states that in August 2007, the daughter's father, Mr. C. E., reported the applicant to the Military Police stating the applicant had intentionally stole from the Army and was a horrible money hungry person, which resulted in an investigation. Previously in the year, the daughter's father, had threatened to report the applicant, if she did not close a child support case. The applicant immediately, reported what was going on to the supervisor, SGM W. W. The applicant then spoke to a Finance officer, who instructed the applicant, by regulation that the applicant had not done anything wrong because when the applicant left for Korea, the child was at the address the applicant reported on her BAH form, and that the applicant had all intentions of the child staying there. Afterwards, Mr. C. E., went to New York and took their child with him and did not return the child. The applicant states, Mr. C. E. was chaptered out of the military and was not stable, so there was no guarantee the applicant's daughter would not be returned to New York, so the applicant left the BAH as New York. The applicant did not want to fight for custody under those circumstances, so the applicant chose to keep things the way they were by ensuring that the child would be financially secure in New York as well as Tennessee, where Mr. C. E. ended up moving their daughter. The applicant understands that at some point, the applicant should have changed the BAH to Tennessee, but was told by several Human Resource and Finance personnel, the applicant was not required to change the BAH, because the orders reflected New York as the residence, when the applicant reported to Korea. The applicant states, prior to this supposed dishonorable period in the career, the applicant was a good Soldier who followed the regulations and did the job to the best of the applicant's ability for eight years. Had Finance informed the applicant about being in the wrong, when the applicant spoke to them, the applicant would have set up a repayment plan, just as the applicant offered to do when the lawyer was negotiating punishment. The prosecutors, however, wanted the applicant to go to jail instead of punishing the applicant with demotion and repayment. The applicant had a strong case, but because the applicant could not risk being sent to jail or being found guilty of a felony, the applicant opted for a chapter 10 discharge. Ultimately, the applicant was demoted, ordered to repay the debt and discharged. Since discharge, the applicant has worked with several different companies supporting the military as and has been unemployed for a period, but has not been reprimanded for fraud or theft. The supervisors in and out of the military enjoyed having the applicant and they appreciate the applicant's work ethic. Currently, the applicant is employed as a contractor and would like an upgrade to enable the possibility of having a more stable type of employment. One which is more than qualified for, yet unable to obtain due to the type of discharge. The applicant enjoyed being a Soldier, the life experiences and the person the applicant had become. The applicant made a mistake and in the applicant's mind, the applicant has and will continue to be punished, but is requesting a second chance, after over twelve years of great service to the country. Also, the applicant has repaid over nineteen thousand dollars of the approximate thirty thousand dollar debt, and is working on repaying the remainder over time. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied self-authored statement. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 February 2020, and by a 3-2 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635- 200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 15 May 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): NIF (2) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (3) Basis for Separation: NIF (4) Recommended Characterization: NIF (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: NIF 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 January 2006 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / HS Graduate / 123 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 12 years, 9 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 30 January 1996 - 1 November 1998 / HD RA, 2 November 1998 - 26 December 2000 / HD RA, 27 December 2000 - 4 August 2003 / HD RA, 5 August 2003 - 19 January 2006 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM-4, NDSM, AFEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: June 2005 - April 2006 / Among The Best 1 May 2006 - 29 April 2007 / Among The Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; two character statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states she has obtained work as a government contractor. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable conditions. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, by reason of In Lieu of Trial by Court-Marital, with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. Her record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant's contentions about following the guidance from the Finance office, was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. 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 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. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 February 2020, and by a 3-2 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 AR20180010668 1