1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 9 April 2014 b. Date Received: 23 May 2014 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that her discharge was unjust. She contends she was misled by the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth, into waiving her right to present her case to an administrative separation board. She did so with the understanding that the Commanding General, would allow her to separate under her Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) for PTSD instead of chaptering her under AR 635-200. She contends that on 13 August 2012, an investigation started against her to determine if she had made threatening comments against her co-workers at Munson Army Hospital on Fort Leavenworth. On 13 July 2012, the applicant was in a counseling session with her First Sergeant, about her evaluation report. While in the counseling session, which was a private conversation between her and the First Sergeant, the applicant told her that she was thinking of hurting herself and others at the hospital. As a result of this report, the first sergeant informed the commander. The applicant was immediately sent for treatment, where it was determined that she was suffering from PTSD. This information eventually led to a Medical Evaluation Board being started, where it was determined that because of her mental condition, she was not fit for duty in the Army and that she should be medically retired. However, while the medical side of the house was providing her treatment and working on processing her out of the Army, her command initiated an AR 15-6 investigation. The investigation determined that when she told her first sergeant about her thoughts, in an attempt to seek help, that she actually threatened co-workers in violation of the UCMJ. None of the evidence showed that she made any public threats to anybody and the only threat that she made was during the conversation that led to her getting treatment. However, the command ignored her mental condition and issued her a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR). On 5 November 2012, the GOMOR was filed in her Official Military Personnel File. After receiving the GOMOR, she continued her medical processing and was told that she qualified for a medical separation. It was not until 21 March 2013 that she was informed that she was facing separation under AR 635-200 for her alleged misconduct and that she had to appear before an administrative separation board to determine if she should be retained in the Army. She contends that she was fully prepared to defend herself at an administrative separation board and to present her case. She sought legal advice from CPT A. C., at the Fort Leavenworth Trial Defense Office and began preparing her case. However, CPT C. spoke to the Chief of Justice, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Fort Leavenworth, who advised her to submit a waiver of her board and that the Commanding General would allow her to be medically discharged over being chaptered. This would also allow her to get out of the military faster so that she could continue to get the help she needed and not be under the mental pressure of further service in the Army. She agreed that this would be the best course of action and submitted a waiver of her board. On 31 May, she was notified that the Commanding General had chosen to separate her under AR 635-200 instead of allowing her to complete her medical processing. As a result, she believes she was completely misled by her defense counsel and by the Staff Judge Advocates who processed her case. She contends it would have made no sense for her to waive a board where the worse discharge she faced was a general, under honorable conditions discharge to then receive that exact discharge and not be allowed to complete the medical processing. Not only did she have a good chance at being retained at an administrative separation board as she had done anything wrong. At the worst, she would have received an honorable discharge for her last enlistment period. As a result of her discharge, she has had to begin the process of applying for disability and treatment from the Veterans Administration. This has greatly delayed her from receiving disability compensation for her military service and has slowed the treatment for her ongoing condition. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses. Electronic medical records revealed diagnosis of PTSD stemming from childhood sexual and physical abuse. Applicant was psychiatrically hospitalized twice. MEB was recommended in July and Aug 2012. Bipolar D/O NOS diagnosis received February 2013 and she was treated with several medications; however, the presence of PTSD and Bipolar disorder during the time period of misconduct does not explain or directly mitigate her misconduct. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 August 2016, 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 17 June 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 21 Mach 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: communicating a threat by stating she was going to kill Ms. G., a co-worker, by stabbing her in the neck with a pen and that she knew where to do it so that Ms. G would bleed out before anyone could help; and Communicating a threat stating that she would kill MAJ K., her former supervisor, and other co-workers. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 26 March 2013 and 16 May 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Conditionally waived, 26 March 2013, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than honorable Conditionally waived, 16 May 2013, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 29 May 2013 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 20 June 2007 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 35 / Associate’s Degree / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-6 / 68W30, Health Care Specialist / 22 years, 11 months, and 10 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: USAR, 28 December 1989 – 7 August 1990 / NA RA, 8 August 1990 – 6 January 1993 / HD USARCG, 7 January 1993 – 28 August 1997 / NIF (Break-in-Service) USAR, 16 December 1998 – 14 August 2005 / NA OAD, 15 August 2005 – 27 February 2007 / HD USAR, 28 February 2007 – 19 June 2007/ NIF e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Germany (prior period of service) / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM-3, ARCAM, NDSM-2, GWTSM, NOPDR-2, ASR, OSR, AFRMM g. Performance Ratings: 1 March 2007 –8 April 2010, Fully Capable 9 April 2010 – 2 March 2011, Among The Best 3 March 2011 – 25 August 2011, Fully Capable 25 August 2011 – 8 June 2012, Marginal 9 June 2012 – 10 April 2013, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Letter of Reprimand, dated 10 October 2012, for communicating a threat to harm her co-worker on several occasions. Memorandum, dated 4 September 2012, Subject: Finding and Recommendations for Commander’s Inquiry, reflects the investigating officer (IO) recommended that the applicant should continue to receive behavioral health support until medically cleared. The IO also recommended that she be identified as high risk, a plan of action made and communicated to her, and if she requires extensive behavioral health support, consider moving her to a Warrior Transition Unit (WTU) to receive focused medical care. Memorandum, dated 6 March 2013, Subject: Recommendation to GCMCA between Administrative Discharge and MEB proceedings, authored by the U.S. Army Medical Department Activity Commander, indicates that the applicant’s medical diagnoses are worthy of comment. Further stating in paragraph 4, “the fact that she (the applicant) was diagnosed with bipolar disorder after her misconduct and the fact that she has not been prescribed nor is she taking medications consistent with a patient suffering from bipolar disorder lead her (the commander) to the conclusion that even if her (the applicant) diagnosis of bipolar disorder is correct, it was not a direct casual factor in her homicidal remarks.” i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 13 July 2012, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Chronological Records of Medical Care documents, dated between 12 July 2012 and 13 July 2012, reflect the applicant suffered with PTSD and bipolar disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: An online application, dated 9 April 2014, and DD Form 214, dated 17 June 2013. 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members’ discharges. “Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre-existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service.” “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. Correction boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service 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. Correction 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. 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 documents and the issues submitted with the 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. Given the MEB's findings, paragraph 1-33, AR 635-200 required the GCMCA to determine whether the Soldier should be processed through the disability system, rather than separated UP AR 635-200. The authority of the GCMCA cannot be delegated, and a copy of the GCMCA's decision is required to be included in the administrative separation proceedings. The GCMCA's determination to proceed with a PEB is based on finding the Soldier's medical condition is the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative elimination, or other circumstances of the individual case warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation. The GCMCA's decision was not included in the separation proceedings. The applicant seeks relief contending, she was misled by the Chief of Military Justice who advised her TDS counsel that if she waived her right to an Administrative Separation Board conditioned upon receipt of no less than a general discharge, the GCMCA would allow her to be medically discharged. However, the waiver of the separation board stated she conditionally waived her separation board contingent upon her receiving a general, under honorable conditions discharge and a complete copy of her MEB results being provided to the GCMCA. The waiver implies, at best, that she hoped the GCMCA would allow her disability processing to proceed, but that if it did not, she would be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official 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 19 August 2016, 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 SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable 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 OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police – PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20140009176 1