1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 November 2018 b. Date Received: 19 November 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from bad conduct to general (under honorable conditions) and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, contacted one of the NCOs SGT B and alleges he advised the applicant not to return, but the applicant did. The applicant was young and made mistakes one wishes could be reversed. 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. VA records only contain DoD content. 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 records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 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: Court-Martial Other / AR 635-200, Chapter 3 / JJD / RE-4 / Bad-Conduct b. Date of Discharge: 21 October 2011 c. Separation Facts: NA (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NA (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was found guilty by a Special Court-Martial of the following offenses: without authority, absented himself from his unit (18 October 2007 until 6 February 2010). On 30 June 2010, she was sentenced to reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of $964 pay for 8 months, be to be confined for 8 months and to be separated from the service with a bad- conduct discharge. On 16 December 2010, the sentence was approved. The record of trial being forwarded to The US Army Court of Criminal Appeals for review and The US Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the approved findings of guilty and the sentence are not contained in the available record and government regularity is presumed in the judicial process. On 11 August 2011, the sentence was finally affirmed and Article 71(c) having been complied with, the bad conduct discharge was ordered to be executed. (3) Recommended Characterization: NA (4) Legal Consultation Date: NA (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 October 2011 / Bad-Conduct 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 August 2006 / 3 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 years / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 2 years, 4 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Special Court-Martial, see paragraph 3c(2) above. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL for 839 days, 18 October 2007 to 6 February 2010; apprehended by civil authorities; military confinement for 184 days, 30 June 2010 to 4 January 2011. Total lost time 1,023 days. Applicant also had 181 days of excess leave, 24 April 2011 to 21 October 2011. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (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 3, Section IV establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the ADRB to be established facts, issues relating to the applicant's innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the ADRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from bad conduct to general (under honorable conditions) and a change to the RE code. The applicant's available record of service and the issues submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The service record indicates the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. The applicant seeks relief contending, she contacted one of her NCOs SGT B and she alleges he advised her not to return, but she did. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the available record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she contacted one of her NCOs advising her not to return to the unit. The applicant further contends, she was young and made mistakes she wishes could be reversed. 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 applicant requests a change to the RE code. Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 4. There was no basis to grant a change to the RE code. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. 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 judicial due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 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 AR20180016321 1