1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 10 July 2016 b. Date Received: 13 July 2016 c. Counsel: Yes 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge to general, under honorable conditions or honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge is inequitable and improper under the totality of the circumstances due to the applicant’s: numerous service related injuries; chronic unresolved pain endured during service; immaturity; length of time in rehabilitative unit pending disposition of her case; struggles with the Medical Evaluation Board and disability rating process; lack of familial and social support; initial unsuitability for military service; misdiagnosed physiological conditions; prior history of abuse; breach in the medical standard of care for back pain; and, subsequent successful employment and educational efforts. The circumstances prior to her discharge, noted above, rendered the applicant incapable of making an informed and intelligent decision concerning the consequences of her decision to request a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and led to her two periods of unauthorized status. 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. The applicant was seen by Behavioral Health only once on 17 October 2008 and diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depression. She reported several stressors related to feeling like a failure since enlisting in the Army, a history of verbal, physical and sexual abuse, and pain concerns related to her back, hip, knee, and ankle. Pain started three weeks into basic training and was placed on 30 days of convalescent leave twice before it was determined physical ailments would deter completion of AIT. She was put on a permanent profiled and a Medical Board was initiated; however, she went AWOL twice during the MEB process. She had already received an initial rating of 30 percent for medical concerns, but contested it. Mental Health Evaluation Letter from April 2016 diagnosed the applicant with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder with Schizoid Personality Features and Schizotypal Personality Features. However, there is no indication that these diagnoses are service related. She was also diagnosed with PTSD, which she did attribute to military service due to being punished for leaving post while in the Army. She reported being confined to a single room, not allowed to eat, go to church, or see a Chaplain. Based on the available medical information, the various physical, mental, and situational stressors are not a mitigating condition for the applicant’s misconduct of going AWOL. 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200 / Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 16 December 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: The applicant voluntarily requested a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under AR 635-200, Chapter 10, on 15 October 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, AWOL Specification I: AWOL, 17 October 2008 - 13 November 2008. Specification II: AWOL, 22 November 2008 - 7 October 2009. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 15 October 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 19 November 2009 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 29 February 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 17 / GED / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-2 / None / 10 months and 6 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Five DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated between 17 October 2008 and 7 October 2009, reflect the applicant’s duty status changed as follows: From “Present for Duty (PDY)” to “Absent Without Leave (AWOL),” effective 17 October 2008; From “AWOL” to “PDY,” effective 14 November 2008; From “PDY” to “AWOL,” effective 22 November 2008; From “AWOL” to “Dropped From Rolls (DFR),” effective 23 November 2008; and, From “DFR” to “Attached/Present for Duty,” effective 7 October 2009. The applicant was apprehended by civilian authorities. DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 23 November 2008, reflects the applicant was charged with violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, AWOL. i. Lost Time: 345 days (AWOL, 17 October 2008 - 13 November 2008 and 22 November 2008 - 6 October 2009) j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: Active Duty Medical Record, 17 October 2008, reflects the applicant was assessed with Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood. Mental Health Evaluation letter, dated 11 April 2016, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Generalized Anxiety Disorder and (Axis II) Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder, with Schizoid Personality Features and Schizotypal Personality Features. Lexington Brain and Spine Institute Letter, dated 7 April 2016, noted active problems of Anxiety (300.00), Insomnia (780.52) and Tension Headache (307.81). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 10 July 2016, with all listed enclosures cited in block 8. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is enrolled in a Paralegal Training Course, maintaining 3.94 grade point average, and was accepted into Columbia College. She is employed as a paralegal at a Probate Court. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. AR 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 “KFS:” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to general, under honorable conditions or honorable and a narrative reason change. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. Her record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general discharge. The applicant contends she should have been medically discharged; however, 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. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed because she was suffering from medical conditions caused while on active duty. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 with a under other than honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial,” and the separation code is “KFS” Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. 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 she was struggling with medical and mental health issues that caused her to leave. The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief. The evidence in the record shows she received assistance on 17 October 2008 and received a treatment plan, which included follow up treatment. However, the applicant left her unit committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends she was misdiagnosed while in the Army and it was only after her discharge that she underwent thorough mental health evaluation, which determined that she was suffering from multiple mental health issues. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 17 October 2008, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation, which indicates she was released without limitations. It appears the applicant’s chain of command determined that although she was suffering from mental health issues, she knew the difference between what was right and wrong. The applicant contends during her separation process, her unit broke many regulations, no one would listen to her concerns, was denied the opportunity to attend church and was not afforded additional medical treatment or counseling. 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 she was young and immature 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 contends that since leaving the Army, she has been enrolled in a Paralegal Training Course, maintained a 3.94 grade point average, has been accepted into Columbia College, and is employed as a paralegal at a probate court. The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant’s performance. They all recognize her good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant’s chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that 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 VA - Veterans Affair ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20160012810 1