1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 10 March 2016 b. Date Received: 4 April 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, her discharge was handled unjustly. The way that the civilian personnel handled her trial was against proper criminal procedure. She had poor representation and was unable to make her decisions; due to her mental incapacity to represent herself. The military did nothing to help her. Her actions were a direct result of PTSD and undiagnosed autism. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant did not have a mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 21 July 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: Misconduct (Civil Conviction) / AR 635-200, Chapter 14, SEC II / JKB / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 14 April 2009 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 11 December 2008 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason for her discharge; she was indicted by a Grand Jury in McCulloch, TX on four counts of injury to a child (17 December 2007). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 December 2008, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant unconditionally waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board. On 4 February 2009, while incarcerated she waived her rights as well as telephonically with military defense or civilian counsel at no expense to the Government within a reasonable time (not less than 3 duty days). She was provided the military defense counsel's information. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 March 2009, the separation authority approved the applicant's unconditional waiver of her case by an administrative separation board and directed separation from the Army with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 September 2006 / 6 years, 22 weeks / moral waiver / 11 September 2006 b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 years / HS Graduate / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92G10, Food Service Operations / 1 year, 2 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: None; the applicant was confined to the McCulloch County Jail system on 13 November 2007. Applicant was confined and unable to undergo a medical and mental status evaluation for her Chapter 14 discharge. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: Civilian Confinement for 417 days, 13 November 2007 to 14 April 2009 j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); the applicant stated in her application that her military and medical records as well as her prison psychiatric records were submitted with the application. However, after careful examination none of these documents were submitted or attached to the DD Form 293. 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. 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 the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant's record of service and the issues 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 misconduct (civil conviction), the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable or a general (under honorable conditions) 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, her discharge was handled unjustly. 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 contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she was unjustly discharged. The applicant further contends, the manner that the civilian personnel handled her trial was against proper criminal procedure. The US Army does not exercise any authority on civilian court case procedures. If the applicant believes she did not receive a fair trial that matter would have be addressed through the criminal courts appeal process. The applicant also contends, she had poor representation and was unable to make her decisions; due to her mental incapacity to represent herself. If the applicant's counsel was inadequate she could have asked the presiding judge for permission to dismiss her counsel and attempt to acquire new counsel with no expense to the government. The applicant additionally contends, the military did nothing to help her. 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. Lastly, the applicant contends, her actions were a direct result of PTSD and undiagnosed autism. The service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 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 21 July 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 AR20160007500 1