1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 30 December 2014 b. Date Received: 6 May 2015 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, she was discriminated upon by her upper chain of command. Things were said and done to her because she was a female. She was talked down to because of her sex. The applicant feels that she should have received an honorable discharge, not a general discharge. She would like to use her GI Bill in order to go back to school to pursue a career in nursing. The applicant states that, unlike many of her battle buddies, she never received an Article 15 or lost rank. The applicant contends that her command was trying to discharge her and that the process was not fair to her as a Soldier. 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 which led to her separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 July 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: Pattern of Misconduct / 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 8 January 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 November 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant displayed a pattern of misconduct, to include missing formations, indebtedness, and failing to follow orders. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 November 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: Undated / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 28 January 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 28 / NIF / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-3 / 91L10, Construction Equipment Repairer / 2 years and 11 months d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Commonwealth of Virginia Notice of Service of Process, dated 18 June 2012, reflects the applicant was ordered to appear before the Virginia Beach General District Court on 19 July 2012. Numerous DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling), dated between 27 October 2011 and 18 October 2012, for patterns of misconduct, command directed to have a mental health evaluation, bar to reenlistment, writing worthless checks, failure to report, failure to obey an order or regulation, operating a motor vehicle recklessly on Fort Benning, operating a privately owned vehicle without a license, failing to be in the correct uniform, and failed to meet financial obligations. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 6 November 2012, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. The applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Adjustment Disorder with mixed Anxiety and Depression. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD 293, dated 30 December 2014; self-authored letter; DD Form 214; and sworn statements previously submitted in the applicant’s case separation file. 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. 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 issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. 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. 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she was discriminated upon by her upper chain of command. Things were said and done to her because she was a female. She was talked down to because of her sex. The applicant contends that she was discriminated by members of her chain of command based on her being a female; however, she had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge. The applicant feels that she should have received an honorable discharge, not a general discharge. She would like to use her GI Bill in order to go back to school to pursue a career in nursing. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. 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 applicant states that, unlike many of her battle buddies, she never received an Article 15 or lost rank. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what she believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. The applicant contends that her command was trying to discharge her and that the process was not fair to her as a Soldier. However, 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 her 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 29 July 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: 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: NA 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 AR20150007935 1