1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 February 2019 b. Date Received: 14 February 2019 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, would like an upgrade of discharge for the purpose of being able to further an education in a collegiate setting and going on to work in a field and setting where the applicant can show the true depth of potential as both being a human and a United States Citizen. 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 Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety Disorder. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with Major Depressive Disorder and Cannabis Use 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 8 May 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: 8 June 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 May 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for engaging in an inappropriate relationship with Private First Class D.L.C., between 17 November 2015 and 9 September 2016; Failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty between 1 November 2016 and 2 November 2016; Failing to be in the correct uniform for physical training and failing to obey a lawful order from Captain E.L.B., on 19 January 2017; Failing to obey a lawful order and disrespectful in language toward Sergeant J.C., on 24 January 2017; and On diverse occasions, she failed to be at her appointed place of duty between 30 January 2017 and 22 February 2017. Her conduct was discreditable and prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the UCMJ, Army Regulation, the civil law, and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 May 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 May 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 April 2014 / 3 years, 25 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 87 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 3 years, 4 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 31 January 2014 to 21 April 2014 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 9 November 2016, for engaging in an inappropriate relationship with Private First Class D.L.C., a married man not her husband between 17 November 2015 and 9 September 2016. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $981.00 pay per month for two months (suspended) extra duty for 45 days (suspended), and an oral reprimand. FG Article 15, dated 1 March 2017, for failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty on 1 November 2016 and 2 November 2016, dereliction in the performance of her duties on 19 January 2017, disobeying a law command from a superior commissioned officer on 19 January 2017, disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer on 24 January 2017, being disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer on 24 January 2017, and failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty on 30 January 2017. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $896.00 pay per month for two months (suspended), extra duty for 45 days (suspended), and an oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 May 2017, indicates the applicant did not have a BH condition that warrant disposition through medical channels IAW AR 40-501 at that time. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for administrative separation. There was insufficient information to conclude that the applicant's alleged misconduct was related to a BH condition. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 in lieu of DD Form 293 and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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 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 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 expressed her desire for an upgrade of her discharge for the purpose of being able to further her education in a collegiate setting and going on to work in a field and setting where she can show the true depth of her potential as both being a human being and a United States Citizen. The applicant's request was noted; however, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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 8 May 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 AR20190002279 1