1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 16 June 2015 b. Date Received: 22 June 2015 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a change to her narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, if she was allowed to transfer to another state, away from her former husband, she would not have had to struggle or encountered such hard times. The applicant states that she was willing to be medically discharged, with an honorable discharge; however, her unit wanted to discharge her for pregnancy, but with a dishonorable discharge. After speaking with legal, her legal counsel contacted the unit commander to advise her that the lowest characterization for a pregnancy discharge would have to be a general, not a dishonorable discharge. The final discharge chapter the command decided on was misconduct, with a general discharge. The applicant contends that her commander’s paperwork that contained dates that she was AWOL did not match up. The applicant was given two weeks to show proof that she was innocent; however, she failed to find the proof she needed to dispute the AWOL dates. The applicant contends that life was very hard plus after reporting her military sexual trauma (MST), life got even harder. In addition to her MST, the applicant endured mental, physical, and sexual abuse by her husband. The applicant also contends that her being 18 plus her pregnant mood swings added to life being hard and that getting out of the military seemed to be the right thing to do at the time. At one time, the applicant states that her unit locked and took away the keys to her vehicle for one whole month, which resulted in her having trouble affording taxis during the time when she was not being properly paid. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, there was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a nexus between a behavioral health or medical condition and the misconduct which led to the applicant’s separation from the Army. No AHLTA records available. Mental Status Exam from March 2005 included a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood and a Personality Disorder (characterized by lifelong pattern of maladaptive behavior, risk taking, and impulsivity). It was noted that she had multiple personal and family issues and suicidal tendencies. She met medical retention standards and was psychiatrically cleared. CID report had no files regarding MST. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 September 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 / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 12 July 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 13 June 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: failed to report to her appointed place of duty on numerous occasions (between on or about 9 February 2005 and 18 April 2005); consumed alcohol while under the age of 21 (18 April 2005); absent without leave (between on or about 5 May 2005 and 7 May 2005); and, failed to keep her chain of command informed of her whereabouts on several occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 June 2005 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 21 June 2005 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 4 August 2004 / 3 years and 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-1 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 11 months and 7 days 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: Summarized Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 8 March 2005, for consuming alcohol under the age of 21 (17 February 2005) and disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer (17 February 2005). The punishment consisted of 14 days extra duty and restriction. CG Article 15, dated 1 June 2005, for being AWOL (5 May 2005 - 7 May 2005). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, restriction for 14 days, and an oral reprimand. Several DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling) dated between 11 February 2005 and 9 May 2005, for failing to follow instructions, failing to report on several occasions, failing to keep her chain of command informed, underage drinking, allowing someone to drive her POV without a license, missing formation, being late for duty, and going AWOL. U.S. Army Crime Records Center Memorandum, dated 1 April 2016, reflects they have no files pertaining to the applicant, which can be considered a “no record” response for USACIDC records pursuant to the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act. i. Lost Time: 2 days (AWOL, 5 May 2005 – 6 May 2005) j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 29 March 2005, reflects the applicant was diagnosed (Axis I) Adjustment Disorder with anxious mood and (Axis II) Personality Disorder not otherwise specified. It was also noted the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any action deemed appropriated by her command. The Report of Medical Examination, dated 18 May 2005, shows the applicant was six weeks pregnant at the time. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Forms 149 and 293, both dated 16 June 2015; a self-authored letter; several letters of support/character reference; and documents from her separation packet. The applicant provided a statement, written by her mother, briefly documents the February 2005 incident and the fact that the applicant has had PTSD prior to her enlistment; however, through years of counseling, much of the applicant’s anger had resolved. 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. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, Pattern of Misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 and a change to her narrative reason for discharge. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her 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 requested her narrative reason for discharge be changed; however, the appropriate SPD code and reason to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged for a Pattern of Misconduct is “JKA” and the RE code is 3. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 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. The applicant contends her discharge should be upgraded because if she was allowed to transfer to another state, away from her former husband, she would not have had to struggle or encountered such hard times. However, the issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. The applicant contends that she was not AWOL and that her commander’s paperwork was incorrect. 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 applicant contends that her military sexual trauma (MST), coupled with her mental, physical, and sexual abuse by her husband, being 18 years old, and her pregnant mood swings made life even harder and ultimately led to her discharge. While the applicant may believe her stress at home and work was the underlying cause of her misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that she sought relief from stress through her command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct. Furthermore, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue. The letter of support provided by the applicant’s mother and her claim of being sexually traumatized was noted. However, there is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she was sexually traumatized / MST by a sergeant. The applicant’s statements alone does not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends that she was young at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant also contends she should have been discharged for being pregnant. Evidence in the record shows that, prior to discharge, the applicant was noted as being six weeks pregnant. However, there is no evidence indicating that the applicant had requested to be discharged as a result of being pregnant. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be her 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 7 September 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 AR20150010749 6