1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 August 2018 b. Date Received: 6 August 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests to change the narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, was unjustly reprimanded by the command. The applicant was retaliated against because of an IG complaint against the commander, CPT E.S., prior to the incident that led to a GOMOR. The battalion executive officer, MAJ W., the acting battalion commander at the time, initiated the Commanders Inquiry on the applicant's alleged conduct, behavior, and actions. The investigating officer, MAJ H., contradicted himself on several occasions throughout the investigation stating there was evidence to support the claim of misconduct, and then turned around and stated, he was "'not able to discover definitive evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.'" The legal counsel submitted a rebuttal, clearly depicting the falsification of evidence in the investigation of the inquiry. The legal counsel failed to state the likelihood of a retaliation against the applicant. The rebuttal was based on supportive evidence that the applicant should be given a lesser filing; however, the command proceeded with the allegations without regard of the rebuttal. An opportunity to appear before the Board would allow the applicant to present factual information on the events. The Honorable discharge was based on serving honorably with impeccable leadership and dedication to Soldiers, unit, and Country, and most notably during a combat tour. 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 Atypical Eating Disorder; Major Depressive Disorder, severe with psychotic features, Depression, and MST. The applicant has a 100% service-connected rating from the VA for PTSD related to MST. In summary, the applicant had 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 6 May 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of PTSD, OBH, and MST), and a prior period of honorable service. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of a change of separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1) / BNC / NA / Honorable b. Date of Discharge: 19 June 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 February 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed that a series of acts of personal misconduct and moral dereliction resulted in her GOMOR, dated 15 January 2013. She was reprimanded for: Consistently displaying disrespectful and arrogant conduct toward civilians, subordinates, peers, and superiors, including her company and battalion commanders. Despite several efforts, she failed to repair. Her behavior only grew increasingly disruptive and problematic, as shown by two specific events. First, in October 2012, her company commander denied her request for a four-day pass, because she failed to complete a safety assessment, and instead of completing the task as requested, she went on a day-long tirade involving the time and attention of almost her entire staff section. She then solicited two unauthorized individuals, including a civilian contract worker in another staff section to sign the DA Form 31, as the approving authority. Second, on 16 November 2012, she lied in an effort to be excused from a unit event, telling her battalion commander that she did not have her military identification card. Despite having been reprimanded, her insubordinate behavior and toxic leadership continued unabated. During Operation Saber Junction, from 10 January through 1 February 2013, she was observed berating others and complaining about various aspects of the exercise and her leadership in inappropriate ways. For conduct unbecoming of an officer as indicated by the GOMOR and her subsequent misconduct as cited above. (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 March 2013, requested resignation in lieu of elimination proceedings (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board Recommendation: Honorable (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 May 2013 / Honorable 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period/Type of Service: 11 June 2004 / Indefinite b. Age at Current Service / Education / GT Score: 29 / Bachelor of Business Administration and Masters in Public Administration / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-3 / 42B, Human Resource Officer, and 12A, Engineer, General / 13 years, 10 months, 16 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG (4 August 1999 to 26 June 2000) / NA IADT (27 June 2000 to 7 December 2000) / NIF ARNG (8 December 2000 to 7 May 2004) / NA APPT (USAR) (8 May 2004 to 11 June 2004) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA, Korea, Alaska / Iraq (13 March 2010 to 14 March 2011 f. Awards and Decorations: DMSM; ARCOM; AAM-2; NDSM; ICM-2CS; GWOTSM; KDSM; ASR; OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: Seven OERs rendered at the rank of CPT/O-3, as follows: 16 October 2006 thru 15 October 2007, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 16 October 2007 thru 30 May 2008, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 31 May 2008 thru 15 May 2009, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 16 May 2009 thru 26 February 2011, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 27 February 2011 thru 26 February 2012, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 27 February 2012 thru 3 July 2012, Outstanding Performance, Must Promote 4 July 2012 thru 6 May 2013, Satisfactory Performance, Promote / Fully Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum for Record, dated 20 December 2012, and its associated documents, reported the detailed findings to the commander's inquiry on alleged conduct, behavior, and actions of the applicant. General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand with its associated documents, dated 15 January 2013, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for consistently displaying disrespectful and arrogant conduct toward civilians, subordinates, peers, and superiors, including her company and battalion commanders; that despite several individuals' efforts, she failed to repair; that in fact, her behavior only grew increasingly disruptive and problematic, as shown by two specific events: First, in October 2012, her company commander denied her request for a four-day pass because she failed to complete a safety assessment. Instead of completing the task as requested she went on a day-long tirade involving the time and attention of almost her entire staff section, and then she solicited two unauthorized individuals, including a civilian contract worker in another staff section, to sign the DA Form 31 as the approving authority. Second, on 16 November 2012, she lied in an effort to be excused from a unit event, telling her battalion commander that she did not have her military identification card. Such behavior was unprofessional and unacceptable. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 1 August 2018; two Service School Academic Evaluations; 10 OERs; Memorandum for Record, dated 20 March 2013; two counseling statements; memorandum (Initiation of Elimination) and its associated documents, dated 5 February 2013; GOMOR, dated 15 January 2013, and its associated documents; 10 character reference/supporting statements; list of installation access; email correspondence, dated 28 January 2013; Memoranda (Investigation Findings), dated 20 December 2012, and Legal Review, dated 28 December 2012, with Index listing tabs and exhibits, but with attachments up to memorandum appointing investigating officer; Drug Testing Program Testing Register; congressional statement rendered by applicant, dated 2 March 2013; and letter, dated 1 February 2013, rendered by the Office of the Inspector General. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation (AR) 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. 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 "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1), unacceptable conduct, pursuant to resignation or voluntary discharge in lieu of elimination proceedings. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms her discharge based on unacceptable conduct 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 the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence showing her service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant requests to change the reason for her separation; however, the narrative reason for her separation is governed by specific directives and as approved by the separation authority. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraphs 4-2b and 4-24a(1) is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is BNC. 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 discharge was unjust, because she was retaliated against for her IG complaint against her commander; the investigating officer of a Commander's Inquiry contradicted himself throughout the investigation by stating there was evidence to support the claim of misconduct, but then turned around and stated, he was "'not able to discover definitive evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt'"; her legal counsel submitting a rebuttal, clearly depicting the falsification of evidence in the investigation of the inquiry, but failed to state the likelihood of a retaliation against her; and although her rebuttal, based on supportive evidence that she should be given a lesser filing, the command proceeded with the allegations without regard of the rebuttal. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that she was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request to change the narrative reason for her discharge. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of her service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that her complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant a change to the narrative reason for her discharge. 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 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 6 May 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of PTSD, OBH, and MST), and a prior period of honorable service. Therefore, the board voted to grant relief in the form of a change of separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3 e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JFF / 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 AR20180012153 5