1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 5 August 2016 b. Date Received: 7 September 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. She was having family problems after her deployment to Afghanistan. Since her discharge, she has not gotten into any trouble. She also injured her back in Afghanistan. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant did not have a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the offenses leading to her separation. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 1 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 17 July 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 March 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was absent without leave on 9 July 2014, until she was apprehended on 10 October 2014. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 March 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Unconditionally waived according to an agreement to dismiss charges made between the applicant and the government on 5 February 2015 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 June 2015 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2012 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 6 years, 5 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG (31 August 2008 to 18 January 2009) / NA IADT (19 January 2009 to 19 June 2009) / HD ARNG (20 June 2009 to 6 October 2010) / HD RA (7 October 2010 to 30 September 2012) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (16 July 2011 to 16 June 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM; AAM-2; AGCM; ACM-CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR- 2; NATOMDL; MUC g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: MP Report, dated 11 July 2014, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for desertion and AWOL offenses. Negative counseling statements for receiving funds from the Army Red Cross; forging NCO's signature for monetary goal; being dropped from roll and becoming a deserter; being recommended to have security clearance revoked; access to classified information being suspended; being flagged which prevented her from attending NCOES courses; and failing to sign in from leave. Agreement to Dismiss Charges, dated 5 February 2015, indicates the applicant, as an accused, agreed to unconditionally waive her right to an administrative separation board, and to plead guilty at a FG Article 15 hearing to two specifications of AWOL charge, and as consideration, the government agreed to dismiss the preferred charges without prejudice and become prejudice upon her discharge, with stipulations. FG Article 15, dated 4 March 2015, for being AWOL on 9 July 2014, until 10 October 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $773 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 February 2015, provided no diagnosis and cleared the applicant for Chapter 14-12c consideration. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 108 days (AWOL: 8 March 2014 to 13 March 2014, for 7 days, 9 July 2014 to 17 October 2014, for 101 days) / Apprehended by civil authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 5 August 2016, and four character reference statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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. Paragraph 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" 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 her under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that 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 incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of her service. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence that her service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends she was suffering from PTSD. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the event that led to her discharge was the result of her PTSD as there is no documentary evidence of any diagnosis of PTSD. The applicant contends that she was having family issues that affected her behavior and ultimately caused her to be discharged. However, she had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends she received a back injury while in Afghanistan, perhaps an indication that 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance and character. 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. 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 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 1 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160015860 2