1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 December 2015 b. Date Received: 4 January 2016 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, the Army treated her unjustly because of her injuries. She scored a 283 on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT); however, she did not receive an APFT patch. She served a tour in Iraq, performed several missions ranging from security at her designated post, to airport liaison, to driving fuel and water trucks, which was her primary job. She realized that something was wrong when she continued to have sleep issues. She requested multiple times for a medical discharge; and instead, she alleges being verbally threatened by an NCO in a public forum and was the recipient of physical and mental abuse; and she did not deserve this kind of treatment. She was sexually harassed by an NCO in her unit. She desires to receive the rest of her educational benefits. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, there is no documentation in AHLTA of the falls she allegedly had while deployed. AHLTA notes from March 2012 document presence of some PTSD type symptoms (poor sleep, anxiety when hearing loud noises, dislike of being around others). Applicant did not meet criteria for PTSD diagnosis. Behavioral Health diagnoses listed in AHLTA: Insomnia, Marital Problem, Other Specified Family Circumstance Problem, Partner Relational Problem, Psychiatric Diagnosis Deferred, No Psychiatric Diagnosis on Axis I, Occupational Problem. VA record indicates she is 80% SC, 40% for TBI with mild memory loss, mild problems with concentration, attention and/or executive dysfunction. No statement regarding mitigation can be made as Basis for Separation is not in File. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 March 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 January 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 October 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The notification memorandum is not contained in the available record; however, the applicant submitted a partial discharge packet with her application. The unit commander's recommendation memorandum shows that the applicant was informed of the following reasons for her discharge; she failed to report on divers occasions (16 September 2011, 30 September 2011, 2 May 2011, 12 May 2011, 16 May 2012, 31 May 2012 and 1 June 2012); she lied and was disrespectful to SGT J.D. (27 September 2011); she was disrespectful to SSG J.H. (30 July 2012); and, she was disrespectful and disobeyed a lawful order from SSG M.J.(13 November 2011). (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 October 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant requested consideration of her case by an administrative separation board. On 21 November 2012, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant's discharge with characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 November 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 December 2008 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 39 / GED / 96 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 14 years, 8 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 18 September 1996 to 18 November 1996 / HD ADT, 19 November 1996 to 28 March 1997 / UNC ARNG, 29 March 1997 to 17 September 2002 / HD USARCG, 18 September 2002 to 21 September 2004 / HD (Break In Service) RA, 19 May 2006 to 13 December 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Iraq (22 July 2007 to 14 October 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM-2, NDSM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Several negative counseling statements for failing to report to her place of duty twice, dereliction of duty, and disrespecting an NCO. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Disabled American Veterans (DAV) letter and VA Rating Decision letter, dated 25 August 2015, reflects the applicant was assigned a 40 percent disability rating for traumatic brain injury with headaches, effective 7 April 2014. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, with blocks 5 and 6 continuations; Austin Pain Associates-Cedar Park, list of applicant's appointments; chronological record of medical care; DAV letter; and a VA Rating Decision letter; the applicant submitted the additional documents: partial chapter 14 discharge packet, and e-mail correspondence. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant went to school full-time, graduated at the top of her class, and became a medical assistant. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 allows for separation for misconduct with paragraph 14-1 allowing for separating personnel because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absence without leave. Paragraph 14-2 states action will be taken to separate a Soldier for misconduct when it is clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop her/her as a Soldier further effort is not likely to succeed; rehabilitation is impracticable or the Soldier is not amenable to rehabilitation. 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." 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available 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. By the documented pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 seeks relief contending, the Army treated her unjustly because of her injuries. 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 applicant further contends, she scored a 283 on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT); however, she did not receive an APFT patch. This contention does not does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant also contends, she served a tour in Iraq, performed several missions ranging from security at her designated post, to airport liaison, to driving fuel and water trucks, which was her primary job. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant additionally contends, she realized that something was wrong when she continued to have sleep issues. The service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Furthermore, the applicant contends, she requested multiple times for a medical discharge; and instead, she alleges being verbally threatened by an NCO in a public forum and was the recipient of physical and mental abuse and she did not deserve this kind of treatment. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. Although the applicant alleges that she was a victim of being verbally threatened, physically and mentally abused and sexually harassed by an NCO in her unit during her military service. There is no evidence in her military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention. Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge. The applicant desires to receive the rest of her educational benefits. 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 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 31 March 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 Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change f. 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 AR20160002296 4