1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 19 September 2016 b. Date Received: 19 September 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she was verbally harassed by two NCOs in charge and no action was taken. Her female sergeant verbally harassed her every day and tried to make her do things she should not while pregnant. She attended a civilian nursing course, was out for five days; and graduated valedictorian of her class. She was right out of basic training and was mistreated and did not know how to properly fight for her rights as a Soldier. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, applicant had pre-existing mental health problems and most likely was a poor fit for the military. There are no mitigating factors between the applicant's behavior and her mental health. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 November 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 December 2010 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 October 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for her discharge; she failed to report for 0845 work call at S-6 section (23 September 2010); she was disrespectful to a superior NCO, SGT Hendrix, by not assuming the position of "at ease" when ordered to do so (22 September 2010); she was disrespectful to her Commanding officer, CPT C.A.B., by continually interrupting him when spoken to (22 September 2010); she was disobedient to a senior NCO, 1SG M., by refusing to obey his order to stop interrupting the Commander (22 September 2010); she was disrespectful to her Commanding officer, CPT B., by saying, "I will never report to the S-6 shop and you can count me AWOL, give me an Article 15, or do whatever you want, but I am not going back there," or words to that effect, in response to her Commander's order to report to S-6 for duty on time and in the right uniform (22 September 2010); she was disrespectful to an NCO, SSG P., by screaming, "Don't yell at me!" or words to that effect (22 September 2010); she failed to report by failing to be outside her barracks room for inspection at 0500 hours (21 September 2010); she failed to report to 0630 accountability formation x3 (21 September 2010, 16 September 2010 and 9 September 2010); she was disrespectful to an NCO, SSG P., when she stood up while he was speaking to her and stomped out of the S-6 building while saying, "Fuck this s !" or words to that effect (20 September 2010); she was disrespectful to an NCO, SGT H., by ignoring her when she called your name, for you to return to the office, and she slammed the doors while exiting the building; additionally, she disobeyed orders by refusing to return to S-6 when ordered by SGT H., who called to relay the order that MAJ M., a superior Commissioned officer wanted to speak to her (20 September 2010); she disobeyed an NCO, SGT H., by failing to turn in a paper on the PT uniform, which was due at 0900 hours (14 September 2010) (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 November 2010, the applicant waived legal counsel. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 23 November 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 January 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 years / HS Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 25U10, Signal Support Systems Specialist / 10 months, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summary Court-Martial, dated 19 November 2010; the applicant was found guilty of the following offenses; without authority, absent herself from her unit (3 August 2010 until 30 August 2010); without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty x2 (24 September 2010 and 21 September 2010). She was sentenced to be reduced to PVT / E-1; forfeiture two-thirds pay for one month ($964), restriction to the limits of Smoke Bomb Hill (to include medical facilities at Womack and Clark) and hard labor without confinement for 45 days. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct; initial and monthly counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL x2 for 28 days (3 August 2010 until 29 August 2010), for 27 days and (21 September 2010 until 21 September 2010), for 1 day; returned to unit on both periods. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation dated, 7 October 2010 relates the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of occupational problems. She was screened for PTSD and TBI and did not meet criteria for either diagnosis of TBI or PTSD. There was no evidence of mental defect, emotional illness, or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through military medical channels. She was mentally responsible, could distinguish right from wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand and participate intelligently as a respondent in any administrative proceedings. She psychologically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application (six pages). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states in her application that she is a licensed nurse 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 him/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. 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 14-12b, Pattern of Misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service 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 a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment 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 characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors 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. Caution shall be exercised 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 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 he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, she was verbally harassed by two NCOs in charge and no action was taken; and her female sergeant verbally harassed her every day and tried to make her do things she should not while pregnant. Although the applicant alleges that she was verbally harassed 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 further contends, she had her baby and was out for five days; she came back and graduated valedictorian of her class. The applicant is to be commended for her effort. However, this contention is not a matter in 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 also contends, she was right out of basic training and mistreated and did not know how to properly fight for her rights as a Soldier. The record of evidence shows that the applicant was afforded the opportunity to obtain legal representation at Trial Defense Services on Ardennes Street, Fort Bragg, NC (907-1950). The applicant refused the right to legal representation. She faced a trial by Summary Court-Martial and an administrative separation under provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The applicant's post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application. 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 29 November 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 AR20160015417 6