IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011974 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X_____ ___X_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011974 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ______________X___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150011974 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of her general discharge to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states while she was pregnant she was physically abused and abandoned by her spouse. She resided in the barracks for the maximum 3 days and attended a marriage retreat with her unit. Her spouse was assigned to Company C and she was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company. They received counseling several times from the first sergeant concerning their marriage 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-3 on 23 January 2008 and she held military occupational specialty 35F (Intelligence Analyst). She was promoted to specialist/pay grade E-4. 2. She went absent without leave (AWOL) on 10 August 2011 and was dropped from the rolls of her organization on 12 September 2011. She was apprehended and returned to military control on 31 January 2012. 3. On 2 March 2012 a flag was initiated for her elimination. 4. On 2 May 2012, she was counselled by her company commander and advised that she would be administratively separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-17 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) based on advice from health providers. She was told she could have been separated under the provisions of paragraph 14-12 of Army Regulation 635-200 due to her misconduct (AWOL), but due ongoing behavioral health assessments it was not recommended. She was told not to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), to keep all scheduled appointments, and she would be barred from reenlisting. 5. A DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 4 May 2012, shows she was screened and found not to have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or a traumatic brain injury (TBI). She was diagnosed by competent medical authority with an adjustment disorder, with anxious mood. Service in the military aggravated her behavioral health condition and it was determined she would not adapt to continued military service. Her adjustment disorder was ?manifested by emotional and behavioral symptoms in response to identified stressors and causing clinically significant distress and impairment in social and occupational functioning.? She was deemed unfit for duty due to a personality disorder or other mental conditions that did not amount to a medical disability. She received a temporary physical profile (not to exceed 90 days) of ?S3? for her psychiatric condition. She met medical retention standards and did not require a medical evaluation board. She was medically cleared for administrative separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-17 of Army Regulation 635-200. 6. On 22 May 2012, the applicant's company commander notified her of his intent to initiate action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, by reason of other designated physical or mental conditions that are not a disability (adjustment disorder with anxious mood). He recommended she receive a general discharge based on receipt of an Article 15, UCMJ, on 27 June 2011 for being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer and her extended period of AWOL. (Her punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-3.) He advised the applicant of her rights. 7. On the same day after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of her proposed separation action. She acknowledged she could receive a general discharge and the results of receipt of such discharge. She waived her rights and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf. 8. On 1 June 2012, the separation authority approved her discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge. 9. She was discharged accordingly in pay grade E-3 on 13 July 2012. She completed 4 years of active service and she had 141 days of time lost. 10. On 8 June 2015, the Army Discharge Review Board denied her petition for an upgrade of her discharge. REFERENCES: AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation states in: a. Paragraph 5-17 – Soldiers will be separated on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. When a commander determines a Soldier has a physical or mental condition that potentially interferes with assignment to or performance of duty, the commander will refer the Soldier for a medical examination and/or mental status evaluation. Soldiers with 24 months or more of active duty service may be separated based on a diagnosis of a personality disorder. Medical review of the personality disorder diagnosis will consider whether PTSD or TBI and/or other comorbid mental illness may be significant contributing factors to the diagnosis. If PTSD or TBI are contributing factors, the Soldier will be referred for evaluation under the physical disability system. b. Paragraph 3-7a – an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization will be inappropriate. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence of record shows in April 2012 the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxious mood that impaired her ability to effectively perform her military duties. Upon the recommendation of a medical authority, her company commander initiated action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17. He recommended she receive a general discharge based on receipt of an Article 15 and her 141 days of AWOL. The separation authority approved her discharge and she was discharged accordingly on 13 July 2012. 2. She provided no evidence or a convincing argument to show her discharge should be upgraded. Her military records contain no evidence which would qualify her to an upgrade of her general discharge. The characterization of her service was commensurate with the reason for her discharge in accordance with the governing regulation. 3. Her administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights. Her record of service clearly did not rise to the level required for an honorable discharge. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011974 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150011974 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2