IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 14 November 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140013150 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT: 1. Counsel requests an upgrade of the applicant’s general, under honorable conditions discharge to fully honorable. 2. Counsel states, in effect, the applicant’s discharge is inequitable because her capability to serve was seriously impacted by the severe harassment she faced while in service, her mental health problems that she suffered from at the time of discharge from active duty included Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, and schizophrenia, and medical exams now require for service-members suffering from PTSD constitute a substantial enhancement of rights and cast substantial doubt on the applicant’s 2007 discharge mitigate the incidents of misconduct. Counsel contends had the applicant been afforded these rights, her discharge status would have been different. Counsel contends a general discharge diminishes the applicant’s record of service and therefore, an upgrade is warranted. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 22 July 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 16 October 2007 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Pattern of Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, JKA, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: Company A, 3rd Brigade Special Troops Battalion, Fort Benning, GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 26 January 2006/4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 8 months, 21 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 8 months, 21 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 74D10, Chemical Operations Specialist m. GT Score: 104 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Iraq (Dates NIF) q. Decorations/Awards: ICM r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: Yes SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 January 2006, for a period of 4 years. She was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She served in Iraq and did not earn any significant awards for acts of valor or achievement. She completed 1 year, 8 months, and 21 days of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Fort Benning, GA. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 7 July 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. Specifically for: a. failing to report to her squad leader after her NCB [sic] class was over (070402); b. being disrespectful towards CPL M. and MSG W. by not going to parade rest after instructed and failing to report at the battalion TOC (070502 and 070507); c. failing to obey instructions by not reporting back on time after dinner chow (070507); and, d. stealing another Soldier’s weapon and taking off running while it was locked and loaded. the battalion CSD team looked for her for over three hours (070701). 2. Based on the above pattern of misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 17 July 2007, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected to submit a statement on her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 3 August 2007, the separation waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on 16 October 2007, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKA, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record does not contain a report of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Nine counseling statements, dated between 2 April 2007 and 1 July 2007, which included monthly performance counseling, failure to report x 2, disobeying an NCO x 3 , disobeying a lawful order, failure to follow instructions, falling asleep on duty, lack of performance and conduct, unauthorized absence, and pattern of misconduct separation counseling. 2. MEDCOM Form 699-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 5 July 2007, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process, was mentally responsible, and able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right. The applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct and cluster B traits. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: Counsel provided a DD Form 293, dated 27 May 2014, and all enclosures. "Enclosures include a diagnosis of PTSD, depression and schizophrenia by Dr. H of the West Los Angeles VA Women's Mental Health Clinic.” POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: Counsel did not provide any in support of the application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. 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. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. Counsel request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, her military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. The record confirms that 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. By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by nine counseling statements for multiple infractions. 3. Counsel 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. 4. Counsel contends the applicant’s discharge is inequitable because her capability to serve was seriously impacted by the severe harassment she faced while in service. However, while counsel may believe the applicant faced harassment at work and was the underlying cause of her misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that she sought relief for the harassment through her command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, Counsel has provided no evidence that the applicant should not be held responsible for her misconduct. 5. Counsel also contends the applicant’s mental health problems she suffered from at the time of discharge from active duty included PTSD, depression, and schizophrenia mitigates the incidents of misconduct. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 5 July 2007, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates she was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant’s chain of command determined the applicant knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully. 6. Lastly, Counsel contends medical exams now require for service-members suffering from PTSD constitute a substantial enhancement of rights and cast substantial doubt on the applicant’s 2007 discharge. However, the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during her discharge processing that would have warranted her separation processing through medical channels. 7. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 8. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Record Review Date: 14 November 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: Yes [redacted] Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 2 No Change: 3 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: No Change Characterization to: No Change Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: NA Change RE Code to: NA Grade Restoration to: NA Other: NA Legend: AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry 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 CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge CID - Criminal investigation Department MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140013150 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1