1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 30 June 2018 b. Date Received: 22 August 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests and upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the characterization of service is inequitable because or the other party involved was allowed to resign and receive an honorable discharge, yet the applicant's request to resign was denied, and a board separated the applicant with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends that upon an appeal to this ruling, the Post Commanding General requested and upgrade to Honorable, but the request was denied at HRC. The applicant has had no contract with A.B., since September 2012. On 4 October 2016, Mr. B., located and contacted the applicant via social networking platform "Linked In" and a screen shot of the conversation is included as evidence for appeal. In this conversation, he informed the applicant that he was allowed to resign and received an honorable characterization of service. The applicant believes the allocation of different characterizations of discharge for two parties involved in the same offense, where there were no other charges made, nor perjury found, to be inequitable. The applicant cooperated fully with the investigation and confessed to the wrongdoing, other than the investigations occurring at different locations (Fort Huachuca for the applicant and Fort Bragg for him) there are no other extenuating circumstances to account for the difference in their characterizations of service. During the investigating and after, the senior ranking current and former supervisors wrote letters and advocated on the applicant's behalf to both retain and later petitioned for an upgrade. They repeatedly attested to the applicant's general excellent conduct and career of honorable service. 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 Depression. There are no VA notes in the record. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 April 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBH), a prior period of honorable service, and post-service accomplishments. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24 a (1) / BNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 26 November 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 February 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Paragraph 4-2(b), because of misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction, for the following reasons: A series of substantiated derogatory activity resulting in a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 18 January 2013, that was filed in her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); and Conduct unbecoming an Officer as indicated by the above-referenced item (3) Legal Consultation Date: On 4 June 2013, the applicant submitted a conditional resignation in lieu of elimination proceedings. The applicant voluntarily tendered her resignation from the Army under the provision of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, in lieu of further elimination proceedings. She elected to waive any further consideration of her case by any appellate or review agency. This waiver was conditional upon her receiving an honorable characterization of service. (4) General Officer Show Cause Authority Recommendation Date: On 13 June 2013, after consideration for the BOI report, their findings and recommendation, and the applicant's personnel file, appellate matters and conditional resignation, the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of separation was disapproved. However, it was recommended that her characterization of service be Honorable. (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: On 31 October 2013, the Board recommended the applicant be eliminated from the United States Army with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterizations of service. (6) Deputy Assistant Secretary Army (Review Boards) Decision Date / Characterization: On 16 November 2013, the applicant's resignation on the conditions that she receive an honorable characterization of service was not accepted. However, the Board's recommendation to involuntarily eliminated the applicant was approved, based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction (AR 600-8-24, para 4-2b), with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 2 August 2007 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education / GT Score: 22 years / NIF / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 35D, All Source Intelligence / 6 years, 10 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 4 January 2007 to 1 August 2007 / HD USAR/Cadet, 2 August 2007 Appointed 2LT / USAR (2 August 2007) e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (11 November 2008 to 2 November 2009) and Afghanistan (30 June 2011 to 30 May 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: BSM-2, AAM-2, MUC, NDSM, ACM-2CS, ICM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 21 May 2010 to 3 December 2010, Best Qualified 4 December 2010 to 21 June 2011, Best Qualified 22 June 2011 to 21 June 2012, Best Qualified 22 June 2012 to 10 June 2013, Best Qualified 11 June 2013 to 26 November 2013, Best Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum of record, dated 11 January 2013, showing that the applicant was recommended for a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (Administrative). General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 18 January 2013, showing the applicant was recommended for engaging in an inappropriate, adulterous relationship with another married officer between December 2011 and June 2012, while serving at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan. Though they bother had knowledge on one another's marital status, they continued to meet in each other's rooms to engage in sexual intercourse. Astonishingly, she continued this relationship even after her husband, another officer, arrived to her location in Afghanistan. The inappropriate relationship only ended when she redeployed and the person she was involved with ended it. Commander's Inquiry relating to CPT A.B., the individual the applicant had the inappropriate relationship with. Board of Inquiry Report, shows that a Board convened on 9 May 2013 to determine whether the applicant should be retained on active duty. The Board of Inquiry recommended elimination under General (Under Honorable Conditions). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; copy of Board of Inquiry Report; acknowledgment of receipt of Board of Inquiry Report; resignation request; characterization of service request; DD Form 214; screen shots of the conversation between the applicant and A.B. on linked in; permission from A.B., to use his DD Form 214 as evidence in this proceeding and his DD Form 214; FOIA Requests to Fort Huachuca, Fort Bragg, and Fort Hood; letter of support from the applicant's elimination board; Officer Evaluation Reports, dated between 2007 thru 2013; and a copy of her GOMOR recommendation packet. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests and 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that her service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that she should have been retained. Further, 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 seeks relief contending, that her characterization of service was inequitable because or the other party involved was allowed to resign and receive an honorable discharge, yet her request to resign was denied, and a board separated her with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). The applicant contends that upon her appeal to this ruling, the Post Commanding General requested and upgrade to Honorable, but the request was denied at HRC. She has had no contract with A.B., since September 2012; on 4 October 2016, Mr. B., located and contacted her via social networking platform "Linked In" a screen shot of the conversation is included as evidence for her appeal. In this conversation, he informed her he was allowed to resign and received an honorable characterization of service. The applicant contends that she believes the allocation of different characterizations of discharge for two parties involved in the same offense, where there were no other charges made, nor perjury found, to be inequitable. She cooperated fully with the investigation and confessed to her wrongdoing, other than the investigations occurring at different locations (Fort Huachuca for her and Fort Bragg for him) there are no other extenuating circumstances to account for the difference in there characterizations of service. During the investigating and after, her senior ranking current and former supervisors wrote letters and advocated on her behalf to both retain her and later petitioned for an upgrade. They repeatedly attested to her general excellent conduct and career of honorable service. The applicant's contentions were noted; 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 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 April 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBH), a prior period of honorable service, and post-service accomplishments. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20180011609 1