1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 December 2015 b. Date Received: 17 December 2017 c. Counsel: None 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 the narrative reason for separation. The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, she never had any problems with the military in over six years. Shortly after being stationed at Fort Bliss, the applicant was in a bad car accident. The applicant states that she had to go to physical and mental therapy for what the unit put her through, it was a struggle. She also had issues with her family care plan and her daughter's safety. The applicant received an Article 15 that resulted in her being reduced, which she contends being reduced two grades was not allowed and was told by JAG to fight it. The applicant states that were many issues with her unit, a unit that was under an investigation. She asked to be release from active duty (REFRAD), but was told she was being discharged. She is now stable with her child and would like to attend college. Her discharge was unfair because it was based on a single incident. She never received her separation file, last pay, or travel pay. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant has service in the USMC and the Army. AHLTA showed one diagnosis of PTSD by a PA at Fort Bliss. There were no diagnoses of PTSD in AHLTA by behavioral-health providers. An AHLTA note of 21 September mentioned her PCL score falling below the score where PTSD becomes a likely diagnosis. A note also indicated that she was seen by the VA in 2012 for one year for PTSD, but I could not substantiate the claim in the Joint Legacy Viewer. A note also referenced her being hit by a drunk driver and injured in an automobile accent on 4 July 2014. She did have AHLTA diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder, Major Depression, Anxiety, Chronic Pain, Depression and Anxiety, Opioid Dependence (one in 2014 and result of treatment of chronic pain), and as already mentioned, PTSD. An AHLTA note also mentioned her having shrapnel injuries and IED concussion during a deployment, with the note saying she was deployed in Iraq in 2003 to 2004 and 2006 to 2007, but I found no obvious records of these injuries (viz., I found no record of a Purple Heart or mention of the concussion in international war on terrorism). The chief difficulty terms of mitigation for an upgrade of her discharge is that there is insufficient information about her, the Article 15, and circumstances of her discharge to determine if a mitigation of behavior that led to her Article 15 or discharge is in order. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 24 February 2017, 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635- 200, Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 27 February 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 April 2014 / 365 days per mobilization Orders 14-097- 0004, dated 7 April 2014, for OEF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 31B10, Military Police / 6 years, 8 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USMC, 8 September 2003 to 11 February 2004 / NIF RA, 13 November 2008 to 26 September 2009 / HD USAR, 27 September 2009 to 15 February 2010 / NA ARNG, 16 February 2010 to 27 January 2011 / HD USAR, 28 January 2011 to 21 April 2014 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, AFRMM g. Performance Ratings: 22 April 2014 to 31 July 2014, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: There is no record of any negative counseling statement and/or UCMJ action; however, the record reflects that the applicant was discharged as SPC/E-4. Discharge Orders, dated 26 February 2015 i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DD Form 214 with end date 26 September 2009; DD Form 215, dated 9 March 2006; and NGB Form 22 with end date 27 January 2011. 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. 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 "JHJ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JHJ" 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." 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was digitally authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 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 on Active Duty. The applicant's contentions were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official and available record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge and to change the narrative reason. The applicant contends her discharge was unfair because it was based on a single incident in her entire Army career. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant requests to change the reason for her separation; however, the narrative reason for her separation is governed by specific directives. The narrative reason specified by AR 635- 5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 13 is "Unsatisfactory Performance," and the separation code is JHJ. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends being reduced two grades was not allowed and she was told to fight it. The Army Discharge Review Board is not empowered to restore former Service member's grade, rate or rank. The Board may only change the characterization or reason for discharge. If an applicant believes there is an error or injustice in her discharge or her grade reductions, she may make an application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, using DD Form 149, which can be obtained online or from a Veterans Service Organization. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would 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. Based on the available 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 24 February 2017, 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: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer 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 NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20160000337 1