1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 April 2016 b. Date Received: 30 August 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, she joined the military very young for the purpose of attending college, which would make her the first in her family to be able to go. The applicant states that the incident that led to her discharge was an altercation she had with a gentlemen who she had previously had a relationship with. He was much bigger than her and she used a weapon to defend herself. She was placed in a mental health facility and later was arrested at the hospital. She spent three months in jail, while she went through a court martial. Following her time served, the applicant was sent back to her unit. The applicant states that her unit commander did not allow her to return to her office and informed her that he was going to chapter her out. The applicant states that her commander informed her that she would not be able to rejoin the military, would not be transferred to the USAR, would never be able to work, and that she lost the GI Bill. Being chaptered out of the military, after going through a court-martial, seemed unjust and extremely punitive. After the military, the applicant became depressed because she knew that she had given the military all she had. Since her discharge, she has received her bachelor's degree in social work and has been accepted to a university to pursue a master's degree. She is a wife and a mother and has grown immensely. She asks the board to consider all the circumstances when they consider her case. She gave five years of her life and paid into the GI Bill; therefore, she would like to receive the benefit to allow her to get her doctorate degree. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant does not have a mitigating Behavioral Health Condition for the offenses which led to her separation from the Army. Both the electronic military medical record (AHLTA) and the electronic VA medical record (JLV) were reviewed. Both records are void of information regarding this applicant. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 March 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, her compelling personal testimony, arbitrary or capricious actions by the command, the circumstances surrounding her discharge, and post-service accomplishments as annotated in the case report and directive mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, under the provisions of Chapter 5, Paragraph 5-3, AR 635- 200, with a corresponding separation (SPD) code of JFF. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 19 May 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: Undated (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant committed an assault upon PV2 W. by stabbing him in the back, thumb, and stomach with a dangerous weapon (knife) (11 November 2005). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 April 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 12 May 2005 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 19 May 2005 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 5 years, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, ASUA, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 27 July 2004, for failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (1 April 2004) and derelict in the performance of her duties (23 and 26 February 2004). The punishment consisted of extra duty for 14 days. General Court-Martial Order Number 6, dated 24 March 2005, reflects the applicant was court- martialed for one specification of violation of the UCMJ, Article 128, for committing an assault upon PV2 W., by stabbing him in the back, thumb, and right shoulder with a knife. The applicant was found not guilty, but guilty of assault consummated by battery except the words "and right shoulder." On 26 January 2005, the sentence adjudged: Reprimanded; to be reduced to the grade of PFC, forfeiture of $1094 pay per month for three months, and confinement for 90 days is approved and will be executed. The applicant was credited with 71 days of confinement. On 24 March 2005, only so much of the sentence as provides for a reprimand, reduction to the grade of PFC, forfeiture of $1094 pay per month for three months, and confinement for 90 days is approved and was executed. The applicant was credited with 71 days confinement. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 February 2005, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Occupational Problem, Relationship Problem and (Axis II) Personality Disorder NOS. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant earned her bachelor's degree and is a wife and mother of four. 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. 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 record of service, 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. 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 be retained on active duty. 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 an upgrade of her discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, 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 applicant contends that she served five years and had good service. 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 is to be commended for her accomplishments. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the characterization 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 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional documents and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional documents: College Transcripts - 1 page MSC Transcripts - 2 pages CCSU Transcripts (BA) - 2 pages b. The applicant presented the following additional contentions: Change blocks 15a, 23, 24, 25 and 28 GI Bill [Note: GI Bill determination is done by the Veterans Administration] c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 March 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, her compelling personal testimony, arbitrary or capricious actions by the command, the circumstances surrounding her discharge, and post-service accomplishments as annotated in the case report and directive mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to "Secretarial Authority," under the provisions of Chapter 5, Paragraph 5-3, AR 635-200, with a corresponding separation (SPD) code of JFF. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 5-3 e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JFF/ No Change to RE code f. Restore Grade to: No Change Authenticating Official: Secretarial Reviewing Authority (SRA): The Board majority vote recommended changing the narrative reason to Secretarial Authority. However, as the Secretarial Reviewing Authority, I reviewed the findings, conclusions, and the Board's recommendation under the authority of Title 10 United States Code Section 1553(b) and Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 (Discharge Review Board (DRB) Procedures and Standards), enclosure E3.7.1.1.1. While I agree with the Board majority vote to upgrade the discharge to HD, I agree with the Board minority vote that the narrative reason should remain "Misconduct." Therefore, I am directing that your DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected by issuing you a new DD Form 214 showing the characterization of service as "Honorable" and leaving the narrative reason as "Misconduct." 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 AR20160016187 1