1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 29 October 2018 b. Date Received: 2 November 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, due to time and a change in circumstances, the applicant believes a change of discharge should be granted. The applicant believes the punishment given was extremely harsh and that the applicant was young and immature at the time of the offense. Since that time, the applicant has grown and had time to reflect on the infraction, and believes the applicant should not be punished for the mistake for the rest of life. The applicant made the mistake when one was a very young adult and now it has hindered career progression. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 18 March 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 14 May 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 April 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 27 January 2010, she receive a Field Grade Article 15 for violating a general lawful order, and wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a married man not her husband. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 14 April 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 April 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 July 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 1 year, 9 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (27 April 2009 - 28 January 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 27 January 2010, for violating a General Order on divers occasion at Camp Taji by entering into the living quarters of someone not a U.S. Service Member (between 27 December 2009 and 11 January 2010); and, for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with F. B., a married man (27 December 2009). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $500 pay per month for two months; and, oral reprimand. Commander's Report, dated 27 April 2010, reflects the applicant received a FG Article 15, on 7 October 2009, for two violations of a lawful general order and making two false official statements. The following punishments were imposed: Reduction to Private (E-2);.forfeiture of $874 pay per month for two months, (suspended); and extra duty 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; four emails. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an 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 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 that she was young and immature at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. . 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. 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 18 March 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 AR20180015398 1