1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 September 2018 b. Date Received: 24 September 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, would receive a counseling statement and receive no corrective training. The applicant believes the chain of command was trying to build a case against the applicant for some reason. Some other Soldiers got in trouble for the same reasons the applicant did, however, they received an Article 15 but they were not discharged. 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 Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and Partner Relational Problem. The applicant is 50% service-connected for non-BH conditions from the VA. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood, Bipolar Disorder with depressed mood, and Depressive Disorder. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 21 February 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 21 December 2009 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 November 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for her discharge; she received a written reprimand from her commander for committing adultery with two Soldiers while at Fort Hood, Texas (17 June 2009); she disobeyed an order from her squad leader by failing to return to her place of duty by 1400 hours (17 June 2009); she made a false official statement to her squad leader, platoon sergeant, and first sergeant by saying "I went to a barbeque at a friend's house," when she actually went on a Morale Welfare and Recreation (MWR) trip to Munich (27 August 2009); she had a disorderly verbal altercation in the A Battery orderly room with her husband (15 September 2009); she failed to return to duty after being released to retrieve her Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH) from home, and she disobeyed an order from her squad leader to retrieve her ACH from home by running personal errands during the duty day instead (22 September 2009); she violated a no contact order given by her first sergeant and battery commander (4 October 2009); and she failed to report to 0630 formation (15 October 2009). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 November 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant's election of rights show that she waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board, even though she was not entitled to a board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 December 2009 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 July 2007 / 5 years / 2 months extension 7 July 2009 b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 years / HS Graduate / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 14T10, Patriot Launching Station Enhanced Operator / Maintainer / 2 years, 5 months, 17 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: Letter of Reprimand, dated 17 June 2009, relates the applicant was under investigation for claims of adultery that she had sexual intercourse with two other Soldiers. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 September 2009, revealed that the applicant met the retention standards prescribed in Chapter 3, AR 40-501, and there was no psychiatric disease or defect that warrants disposition through medical channels. She was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative board proceedings. She was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by Command. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages). 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service and the issues submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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. By the documented pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 seeks relief contending, she would receive a counseling statement and receive no corrective training; and she believes her chain of command was trying to build a case against her for some reason. 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 applicant further contends, some other Soldiers got in trouble for the same reasons she did, however, they received an Article 15 but they were not discharged. 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. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 21 February 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 AR20180013010 3