DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ARMY REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY 251 18TH STREET SOUTH, SUITE 385 ARLINGTON, VA 22202-3531 SAMR-RB 1 August 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, US Army Review Boards Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings for AR20160001488 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings, dated 6 July 2017, in which the Board members unanimously recommended partial relief of the applicant's request 2. I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. Therefore, under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all Department of the Army Records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing her characterization of service as "honorable." I direct no further correction be made to the record of the individual concerned. 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated no later than 4 December 2017. Further, request that the individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: Encl .t Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) BOARD DATE: 6 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001488 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ___x_____ __x______ __x______ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 6 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001488 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by re-issuing her DD Form 214 for the period ending 6 March 1987 to show her characterization of service as "general under honorable conditions." 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to re-issuing her DD Form 214 for the period ending 6 March 1987 to show her characterization of service as "honorable." __________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. BOARD DATE: 6 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001488 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 the characterization of her service to honorable or general under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states she was subjected to sexual harassment and physical abuse while attending training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. 3. The applicant provides: * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim) * two letters * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 January 1984. She completed basic training at Fort Jackson, SC, and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Sam Houston, TX. She was awarded military occupational specialty 91A (Medical Specialist). Item 21 (Time Lost) of her DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows she was absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 29 June through 12 July 1984 while en route to Fort Carson, CO. 3. Her record contains an Optional Form 275 (Medical Record Report), dated 1 October 1986, which revealed the applicant was admitted to gynecology services with heavy vaginal bleeding and a diagnosis of threatened abortion at 14 weeks gestation. An ultrasound revealed a single fetus in breech presentation with good cardiac and fetal activity. The applicant complained of severe pain and following this had passage of the fetus. When called by the nursing staff, the doctor responded and found the fetus lying on the bed. There was no sign of life in the abortus. It was further noted the applicant had significant difficulty dealing with the spontaneous abortion and Mental Health was consulted. They felt the applicant was undergoing an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features secondary to her spontaneous abortion and they elected to follow her as an outpatient. However, the available record does not show she received treatment for her adjustment disorder, but her strong distress about the loss of her desired baby is noted in her medical records. 4. On 8 January 1987, the applicant was counseled on the requirements for completion of a medical examination prior to separation. She acknowledged if she was requesting a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, she was not required to undergo a medical examination; however, she could request a medical examination. The applicant indicated she did not desire to undergo a separation medical examination. 5. On 9 January 1987, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for absenting herself from her organization, to wit: Company C, 3rd Battalion, 4th Maintenance, Forward Support Battalion, located at Fort Carson, CO, for the periods 5 through 17 November 1986, 18 through 25 November 1986, and 1 December 1986 through 8 January 1987. 6. On 9 January 1987, the applicant signed a statement before defense counsel in which she declared she had been advised the government had not received the necessary documentation and/or records with which to obtain a conviction by a court-martial. a. However, this was not due to any fault of the government, but merely due to the time required to request and mail the documents and records. Further, she was advised by military counsel that counsel could not completely advise her without the records. She realized her defense counsel was limited by the few records which were available as to what advice he could give. Nevertheless, knowing all this to be true, she waived all defenses that may have become known had her defense counsel been able to review her records. b. Knowing all this to be true, she willingly and voluntarily declared that she was AWOL from the U.S. Army from 5 to 17 November 1986, 18 to 25 November 1986, and 1 December 1986 to 8 January 1987. She made this admission for administrative purposes only so she could process out of the Army. She realized by doing so that she could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions. c. She acknowledged that military defense counsel explained and she understood all the legal and social ramifications of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and what it would mean in the future. d. She acknowledged the agreement only pertained to her unauthorized AWOL. She acknowledged that she realized the Army (at any time prior to her discharge) could prefer charges for any other military crimes which might be pending against her. 7. On 9 January 1987, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and she was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to her. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 8. In her request for discharge, the applicant indicated that she was making the request of her own free will and she had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person. She understood that by requesting a discharge, she was admitting guilt to the charges against her or of a lesser-included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. She further acknowledged she understood that if her discharge request was approved, she could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that she could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA, and that she could be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. The applicant did not submit a statement in her own behalf. 9. On 30 January 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed receipt of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. 10. On 6 March 1987, the applicant was discharged accordingly. She completed 2 years, 11 months, and 4 days of net active service during this period with time lost from 29 June to 12 January 1984, 5 to 16 November 1986, 18 to 24 November 1986, and 1 December 1986 to 7 January 1987. 11. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 12. The applicant provided a VA Form 21-4138, dated 1 December 2015, in which she requests disability compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She contends: a. She was treated poorly and still suffers greatly from the military service she performed in the early 1980s. She states the first experience occurred in basic training when she was told to go to chow and then put on her camouflage. The first sergeant (1SG) approached her and said, "Oh, you think you're too cute to wear camo make-up." As she started to explain herself, he pulled out a damaged camo stick and rubbed the tube across her face. The damaged stick scratched up her face and she was told to throw away her food and leave. When she returned to her drill sergeant, he asked what had happened and brought her to the captain's office to report it. They sent her to the medical hall and the next morning she was called out of formation and the 1SG apologized to her in front of the whole company. b. The next situation occurred at Fort Sam Houston, TX, during AIT. She was approached by the 1SG to go on a date with him. She told him no, he was too old for her; however, after she told him no, he told her that she would never have a peaceful day in the military. From that day forward, he sexually and verbally harassed her every day. Every time she said no, he gave her extra duty, such as scrubbing the outside building bricks with a toothbrush or picking grass out of the cracks of the sidewalk. While this was happening an incident occurred with a friend who was also serving in the military. While they were in the upstairs bathroom the door slammed, they heard a roar, and felt something clawing at their bodies. They freaked out and ran from the building until they were forced to go back upstairs with the rest of the women they roomed with. While they were sitting there, her friend started to speak in a deep voice and began to vomit green stuff. They all started praying and her friend was taken away by ambulance the next morning. When she sat down with the 1SG, he told her if she kept telling the story he was going to send her where he had sent her friend. Nobody saw her friend for 3 weeks. After that, a Soldier who was in the process of being discharged told her that the class before her class had the same experience. They also experienced beds randomly moving up and down. She told the Soldier to get her friend's file and call her mother to let her know what was going on. He looked for her file but could not find one. When they finally saw her friend she was totally out of her mind and looked like a zombie on medicine. They were told she was being sent home and they never saw her again. c. She married on 5 July 1984 while in Texas. Her husband confronted the 1SG and she tried to file a formal complaint; however, the captain would say, "You know you’re talking about my right hand man." She knew he would never let her file a formal complaint so she asked to be reassigned and was denied. After training she was sent to Fort Carson, CO, to be a medical specialist; however, she was changed to a combat medic once she arrived. She became pregnant and after 5 months she began hemorrhaging from a miscarriage. She received awful treatment at the base hospital. She was placed in a room with another patient and did not see a doctor right away. She was yelling as she passed the baby and the nurse kept coming into the room telling her to shut up because she was disturbing the other patients. After 5 hours, the baby came out and the girl in the room with her started screaming. The nurse came in, saw the baby between her legs, and told her to call for her once the afterbirth came out. The nurse threw covers over her with the baby still between her legs. d. She passed out and awoke 2 hours later to a doctor cutting the umbilical cord and placing the baby in a bucket. She was given medicine to knock her out prior to removal of the afterbirth. The following day she was released without any medical restrictions. She was in major pain so she immediately went back to the hospital to talk to someone. She told the doctor she couldn't sleep, all she could think of was the nurse yelling at her and the doctor putting the baby in a bucket. She was sent to a psychologist for counseling and therapy. She also filed a report against the nurse. However, she was told the nurse would be placed on the day shift for 3 weeks of training under the head nurse as punishment. The applicant wanted to sue but was told she could not because the government owned her. e. At this point she only had a few months left in service. She told them she could not finish so she was issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions. She began using drugs to numb her thoughts and to forget what she had experienced. She is now 21 years sober, yet still suffers greatly from these horrific experiences. She was a young, happy girl who worked for a dentist prior to joining the Army; however, after performing military service she has been to multiple therapists in order to deal with what she encountered. 13. She provided a letter from her husband, who states the applicant was sexually harassed while training at Fort Sam Houston, TX. Her 1SG made advances towards her from the time she arrived until she left. It became so bad that he had to confront him and threatened to report him to the company commander for fraternization. This slowed down her 1SG's advances; however, once he (her husband) moved up the hill to complete his schooling, the harassment started again. The 1SG would make her perform extra duty for not giving in to him. Once again, he had to confront the 1SG, but this time he threatened him with violence and that he would inform the 1SG's spouse. The 1SG had the applicant working from sun up to sun down on ridiculous things to keep her busy and isolated from her peers. At the time, he did not think the applicant would make it. 14. She also provided a letter from her mother, who claims, in effect: a. Her daughter (the applicant) began calling her every day after the sexual advances and misconduct began with her supervisors. The applicant told her that she had a certain time each evening to call home and if she didn't call home she should know something had happened to her and that she should try and contact someone in authority. During the calls she could always hear a male voice in the background saying, "Private Knox get off the phone." It became hard for her to comprehend a secret code of conduct amongst the superiors that made it impossible to report or trust anyone for fear of reprisal. b. Her mother claims the applicant was always fearful for her life. She was a young black female with no power to defend herself. These men had been physically, mentally, and sexually mistreating women for years without accountability for their actions. The applicant suffered inwardly and outwardly and she began making decisions detrimental to her life. During the calls her mother would talk to her and try to lift her spirits, but deep down she knew the odds were against her. The applicant forever became a changed person. Her mother did not know there was a name for this behavior until later on as the applicant spiraled out of control with drugs as a way to handle what was going on. Her mother traveled to help her with her problem. After the applicant was AWOL, her mother sent her sister and husband to retrieve her and bring her home. After the applicant arrived home, she was told she had to make things right. The applicant went to an Army base near Indiana and turned herself in. She only had a few months left so she was given a discharge under other than honorable conditions. c. PTSD continued to affect her ability to raise her children and her mother raised the children temporarily for about 5 years. After she was able, the children were returned to her; however, her mother still acted as caregiver assisting both financially and emotionally. Her daughter does not trust anyone and she suffers from short term memory problems and bouts of mood swings. She married a man in 1984 while they were in the service. They were separated over 30 years, but reunited in 2015 and remarried. The applicant has had difficulty with relationships due to the effects of the males she encountered throughout her years in service and her children have suffered as she fought with bouts of depression and drugs. PTSD affects the entire family and she knows it causes divorce, pain, stress, and sometimes death. The applicant needs help which is long overdue. Without it, she will never lead the productive life that she saw in her daughter before she went into service. 15. On 11 May 2017, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Boards Agency Senior Medical Advisor, who stated the totality of evidence supported mitigation of her misconduct. The advisory official reviewed the applicant's available service records and concluded: a. She met the medical retention standards in accordance with chapter 3, Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), and following the provisions set forth in Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) that were applicable to her era of service. b. Her mental health conditions were not considered at the time of her discharge from the Army. c. A review of available documentation discovered the evidence of mental health considerations which bear on the character of her discharge. A mitigating nexus between the applicant's misconduct and her mental health was discovered. However, there was insufficient mental health reason to change the character of her discharge. 16. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion for review and comment. She did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and it provides standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM-III nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From an historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis). The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma." 2. PTSD is unique among psychiatric diagnoses because of the great importance placed upon the etiological agent, the traumatic stressor. In fact, one cannot make a PTSD diagnosis unless the patient has actually met the "stressor criterion," which means that he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic. Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown, however, that there are individual differences regarding the capacity to cope with catastrophic stress. Therefore, while most people exposed to traumatic events do not develop PTSD, others go on to develop the full-blown syndrome. Such observations have prompted the recognition that trauma, like pain, is not an external phenomenon that can be completely objectified. Like pain, the traumatic experience is filtered through cognitive and emotional processes before it can be appraised as an extreme threat. Because of individual differences in this appraisal process, different people appear to have different trauma thresholds, some more protected from and some more vulnerable to developing clinical symptoms after exposure to extremely stressful situations. 3. The DSM Fifth Revision (DSM-V) was released in May 2013. This revision includes changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and acute stress disorder. The PTSD diagnostic criteria were revised to take into account things that have been learned from scientific research and clinical experience. The revised diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters: intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity. The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms; the seventh assesses functioning; and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition. a. Criterion A, stressor: The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, as follows (one required): (1) Direct exposure. (2) Witnessing, in person. (3) Indirectly, by learning that a close relative or close friend was exposed to trauma. If the event involved actual or threatened death, it must have been violent or accidental. (4) Repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of the event(s), usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders, collecting body parts; professionals repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). This does not include indirect non-professional exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. b. Criterion B, intrusion symptoms: The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s) (one required): (1) Recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories. (2) Traumatic nightmares. (3) Dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness. (4) Intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders. (5) Marked physiologic reactivity after exposure to trauma-related stimuli. c. Criterion C, avoidance: Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event (one required): (1) Trauma-related thoughts or feelings. (2) Trauma-related external reminders (e.g., people, places, conversations, activities, objects, or situations). d. Criterion D, negative alterations in cognitions and mood: Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event (two required): (1) Inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs). (2) Persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous"). (3) Persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences. (4) Persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame). (5) Markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities. Feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement). (6) Constricted affect: persistent inability to experience positive emotions. e. Criterion E, alterations in arousal and reactivity: Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event (two required): (1) Irritable or aggressive behavior, (2) Self-destructive or reckless behavior, (3) Hypervigilance, (4) Exaggerated startle response, (5) Problems in concentration, and (6) Sleep disturbance. f. Criterion F, duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than 1 month. g. Criterion G, functional significance: Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational). h. Criterion H, exclusion: Disturbance is not due to medication, substance use, or other illness. 4. As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis and treatment of PTSD the Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge. It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge. Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time. 5. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 6. BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies. Therefore, the determinations will be based upon a thorough review of the available military records and the evidence provided by each applicant on a case-by-case basis. When determining if PTSD was the causative factor for an applicant's misconduct and whether an upgrade is warranted, the following factors must be carefully considered: * Is it reasonable to determine that PTSD or PTSD-related conditions existed at the time of discharge? * Does the applicant's record contain documentation of the occurrence of a traumatic event during the period of service? * Does the applicant's military record contain documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms? * Did the applicant provide documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms rendered by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider? * Was the applicant's condition determined to have existed prior to military service? * Was the applicant's condition determined to be incurred during or aggravated by military service? * Do mitigating factors exist in the applicant's case? * Did the applicant have a history of misconduct prior to the occurrence of the traumatic event? * Was the applicant's misconduct premeditated? * How serious was the misconduct? 7. Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time. Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. 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 would be clearly inappropriate. c. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 9. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends, in effect, that she should receive an upgrade of the characterization of her service to honorable or general under honorable conditions due to suffering from the effects of PTSD after being sexually harassed while on active duty. She claims that PTSD was a mitigating factor for her misconduct which resulted in her discharge under other than honorable conditions. 2. Her claims are not supported by evidence other than the statements she provided. Her available military records show no evidence of sexual harassment she may have experienced while she was serving on active duty and she provided no evidence which shows she has been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional. 3. The applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, she admitted guilt and waived her opportunity to appear before a court-martial. The characterization of service she received was commensurate with the reason for her discharge. 4. However, while the medical advisor opined there was insufficient mental health reason to change the character of her discharge, a review of available documentation discovered evidence of mental health considerations which bear on the character of her discharge. A mitigating nexus between the applicant's misconduct and her mental health was discovered based on a psychiatric diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features secondary to spontaneous abortion which occurred in October 1986. The available record did not show she obtained treatment at the time for her adjustment disorder, but her strong distress about the loss of a desired baby is noted in her medical records. 5. The diagnosis of an untreated adjustment disorder following the loss of her baby appears close enough to believe these factors played some role in her misconduct to obtain favorable consideration in upgrading her characterization of service. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001488 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001488 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2