1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 November 2018 b. Date Received: 30 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 honorable and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge was wrongfully given because the procedures for the applicant to receive the court martial, let alone being discharged, were unfair, unjust, and utterly did not adhere to regulations. The commander treated the applicant like a criminal before, during, and after the court martial. The applicant made mistakes in the beginning years of a military career; which were due to being both young in the Army and in life generally. If the applicant is granted an honorable discharge and a change to the reentry code, the applicant will reenlist. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 January 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: 22 January 2016 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: with intent to deceive, make to 1LT G, an official statement, "I've never used Z's card without permission," which statement was false in that the applicant previously used the account number listed on the card to make purchases without Z's permission, and was then known by the applicant to be so false (20 May 2013); steal food, of a value less than $500, the property of Pizza Hut, on divers occasions between (11 April 2013 and 1 July 2013); In that Private (E-1) W, U.S. Army, did, at or near Fort Hood, wrongfully appropriate a Sony Vaio laptop computer, of a value less than $500, the property of SPC A, between (1 August 2013 and 1 September 2013); and with intent to defraud, falsely, pretend to AT&T that she had authorization to pay for her telephone bill using a bank card linked to Credit Union account number with last four #, then knowing that the pretenses were false, and by means thereof did wrongfully obtain from AT&T services, of a value less than $500, telephone services, and that said conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces between (1 June 2013 and 1 July 2013). On 12 March 2014, she was sentenced to forfeit $750 pay per month for one month, to be confined for one month, and to be discharged from the service with a bad-conduct discharge. On 27 August 2014, 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 and the order executing the sentence are not contained in the available record and government regularity is presumed in the judicial process. (3) Recommended Characterization: NA (4) Legal Consultation Date: NA (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 January 2016 / Bad-Conduct 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 10 July 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 years / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 3 years, 5 months, 18 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: Military confinement for 24 days, 12 March 2014 to 6 April 2014, as a result of her court-martial. Applicant also had 387 days of excess leave 13 December 2014 to 22 January 2016. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); DD Form 214, DD Form 215; support statement; and self-authored statement. 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 honorable and a change to RE code. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents 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, her discharge was wrongfully given because the procedures for her to receive the court martial, let alone being discharged, were unfair, unjust, and utterly did not adhere to regulations. 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 this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant further contends, her commander treated her like a criminal before, during, and after her court martial. 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 also contends, she made mistakes in her beginning years of her military career; were due to being both young in the Army and in life generally. 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 additionally contends, if she is granted an honorable discharge and a change to the reentry code, she will reenlist. Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their 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. 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 13 January 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 AR20190000024 1