IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 December 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190013080 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of her previous requests for a change to the narrative reason for her separation from “Misconduct – Serious Offense” to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * 3 DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * Advanced Individual Training Clearance Record * Progress Note (Medical) * Email Headings * 3 Applicant Statements FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous considerations of the applicant's cases by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Numbers: * AR20070007549 on 11 September 2008 * AR20090002446 on 3 September 2009 * AR20180009139 on 3 June 2019 2. The applicant provides three DD Forms 293. The applicant states, in DD Form 293 dated 24 September 2019, she requests the reason change to reflect reason code Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The alleged serious misconduct never happened. The chapter action which took place while she was sick in hospital was reprisal for filing a congressional complaint and Command Sergeant Major violating the Do Not Act Do Not Tell policy. She is being stalked by her former Fort Lee, VA chain of command at the company, battalion, brigade and post levels and family of the Army Discharge Review Board in. These family members are trying to kill her, physically, psychologically, and deprive her of basic human rights. Threat to Life, police chiefs are family and prevent heir police force from prosecution, arrests of their family members since 2016, days after she was examined at Tuscaloosa, Veterans Administration Medical Center. She requests application be considered without prejudice to a blood or marriage relation to a number of families. These family members are employed as car dealers, insurance, banking, pest control, utility workers, realtors, nurses, lawyers, policemen, doctors etc. (1) In DD Form 293, dated 14 December 2019, the applicant states the above and that the alleged serious misconduct never happened. The separation board created by that took place while the soldier was sick in hospital (command referred) was reprisal for filing a congressional complaint and Command Sergeant Major (CSM) violating DoNotAskDoNotTell and reporting Military Sexual Trauma. This veteran is being stalked by the family members of the ADRB, and these persons are trying to kill this veteran. These persons are the family members of and and Navy veteran sentenced to 30 years for radiological device created to kill Muslims. Also, she requests her application be considered without prejudice to a blood or marriage relation to a number of families. These family members are employed as car dealers, insurance, banking, pest control, utility workers, realtors, nurses, lawyers, policemen, doctors etc. she has been a victim of 4 staged car accidents involving. These accidents were an attempt to cause physical and mental injury and to destroy her personal property. All these individuals are family members of her former chain-of-command from the company-post levels and members of the ADRB. Her 77-year-old father was medically murdered by a urologist, (arrested for alcohol) who inserted a catheter incorrectly to cause urethral injury, and sepsis, who later reported to the hospital to ensure he died as a result of his actions and lied and said he didn't realize the patient had died. He told the veteran's father's medical records 4 years after his suspicious death. This doctor is a relative of her former chain of command. She regrets knowing that these individuals are capable of these malicious acts. Clearly no serious misconduct ever took place. The allegations of serious misconduct are untrue. The mental health provider, Dr. and other physicians are all family members who lied on her for filing a congressional complaint and reporting military sexual trauma (MST).. wrote a phony medical document to assist her chain-of- command in their decision to create phony documents against her including unlawful flagging for malingering. She desired to exit the military but was told they would "only" be released under a homosexual chapter or chapter that would ensure a bad re-entry code and bad discharge reason code. Any veteran can be charged with commission of a serious offense when allegations can be made up. All persons participating in the unlawful chapter board action in 2006, at Fort Lee have family members listed above and participating in this campaign of hate and terror. No veteran should have to consider being stalked, harassed, and killed by members of the Ku Klux Klan as a result of military service. (2) DD Form 293 dated 3 March 2020, she states the above and that a threat to life was ignored by Fort Lee, Commanding General 2005/2006. The trial defense service attorney violated AR 27-26, AR 27-10. There was an exclusion of evidence to conceal the commands violation of AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). Forms were falsified (DD Form 2808 Report of Medical Examination). The relatives for refused to list any of her significant or disqualifying defects. The applicant states, authorizing separation under other than honorable conditions who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a medical evaluation board (MEB). She discusses Captain and the actions of others regarding her separation. She states she has been treated and diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. 3. The applicant provides: a. An Advanced Individual Training (AIT) Clearance Record, dated 25 October 2005, shows the applicant’s information and handwritten information. b. A Progress Note (medical), dated 4 June 2006, shows a note form Master of Social Work regarding her mental health and an admission note. c. An unsigned statement, dated 13 November 2019, states this correspondence is reference to the veteran applicant. She was released from active duty, Fort Lee, VA in 2006, after filing a congressional complaint regarding deplorable barracks that caused significant hardship, sickness, etc. As a result, of filing a congressional, a series of unlawful retaliatory events took place concerning the applicant. She was expelled from her barracks on the day, her former first sergeant/1SG, was relieved for sexual assault and placed in permanent party barracks and involuntarily re-assigned to a permanent party unit. Upon discharge, even though her life had been threatened, she was not prepared to experience the stalking and harassment, noise campaigns and life interruptions by the family members of her former chain-of-command members from the company, battalion, brigade and post levels and civilian DOD employees from Fort Lee, Department of Defense in. She is also being stalked by persons believed to be the family members of the Army Discharge Review Board to include Colonel, DOD Investigator and Department of Veterans Affairs employee. These family members have staged car accidents, stolen money from her bank account, unlawfully changed her door locks, stolen car tags, broken into her vehicle, intercepted her mail, seized her storage unit, sent pornographic emails, unlawfully entered her home, sent countless spam, arranged and scheduled fraudulent C&P exams at Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers with their family members employed as nurses, doctors, physicians, to defraud the veteran out of potential benefits. These fraudulent compensation & pension exams were scheduled with individuals in various agencies of the Birmingham and Tuscaloosa VA Medical Centers. These family members work in various forms of government. DOD, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Social Security Administration, United States Postal Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, lawyers, judges, local police, railroad, banking, insurance, car dealers, etc. These family members are trying to kill the applicant and have made repeated attempts on her life. Individuals waiting outside her home and in retail parking lots. Chief are relatives and are totally unresponsive when the veteran has called 911 to report the criminal activities of these family members, leaving her without police protection. She has experienced homelessness as a result of these family members’ criminal activities. she has requested the narrative reason for her wrongful discharge be changed to PTSD and has submitted medical documentation to the ADRB along with compelling evidence, supporting her allegations regarding her former chain of command at Fort Lee. She is not suicidal. Efforts to report these criminal matters to the police, DOD, CID, FBI, VA, and ADRB have been ignored. d. Statement, dated 3 March 2020, states Fort Lee, Unlawful Separation, Threat to Life of applicant by various individuals and multiple departments. e. Statement dated 3 November 2020; states repeated contact has been made thru the Army Review Board Agency reference death plot concerning Military sexual trauma veteran,. Her life was threatened on active duty at Fort Lee. The Commanding General, did not report the death threats to law enforcement officials or military personnel leaving the veteran’s safety at risk. The family members of the Commanding General, the separation authority, the Board President, and staff members of the Discharge Review Board Agency are involved as is the psychologist who administered an improper mental health evaluation after the post sergeant major violated the “Do Not Ask Do Not Tell Policy. M.D. refused to give a medical profile to her after two inpatient mental hospitalizations in support of his family members in the applicant’s chain-of-command. Despite compelling medical evidence, the ADRB refuses to change her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to reflect PTSD reference the unlawful separation. TDS Attorneys CPT CPT and MAJ assisted the applicant’s command in administering an unlawful separation by deliberately omitting her complete medical records from her separation packet. She gives Congressional officials express consent to investigate this matter. a US Army Soldier came to a religious facility and tried to kill the veteran with a laser device while sitting in his car in February 2019. 4. Review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. She enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 4 June 1987. She held military occupational specialty 75B (Personnel Administration Specialist). b. She was honorably released from active duty on 5 October 1990. Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows she completed 3 years, 4 months, and 2 days of active service this period. c. She enlisted in the Kentucky Army National Guard (ARNG) on 25 February 1999. She was honorably released from the ARNG on 5 June 2000 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement), St. Louis, MO. She completed 1 year, 3 months, and 11 days net service this period. d. She enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 May 2005. She was assigned to Fort Lee, VA to attend advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist). e. Her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains eleven DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) dated between the period 8 June through 19 November 2005, during AIT. These documents show she was counseled concerning the commander’s policy on living in the barracks; her failure to pass the Army Physical Fitness test (APFT); her failure to follow directions; her violations of Articles 92 (failure to obey a lawful order or regulation and Article 115 (malingering) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); professional growth; and her failure to report for duty. f. On 12 January 2006, she received a twelfth counseling from her commander. In it, she was notified that Permanent Change of station (PCS) orders were published on 27 December 2005, assigning her to Fort Campbell, KY with a reporting date of no later than 14 January 2006. She was ordered to visit the appropriate travel office, to make the appropriate flight arrangements, to secure airline tickets, to provide the commander a copy of her itinerary by 1500 hours on that day (12 January 2006), to vacate the barracks, and of the possible elimination action that would be taken against her under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel) if the PCS instructions were not complied with. g. On 23 January 2006, her commander notified her that he was initiating action to separate her under the provisions of paragraph, 14-12c (misconduct), AR 635-200. He cited her violations of Articles 90 (willful disobedience of superior commissioned officer and willful disobedience of a noncommissioned officer (NCO) of the UCMJ as the basis for his action. The applicant refused to sign the notification. h. On 27 January 2006, she underwent a medical examination. Her DA Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination) shows the purpose of the examination was separation and that she was qualified for chapter. i. A Mental Health Evaluation dated 27 January 2006, shows her behavior was suspicious, her thought content was normal, she was fully alert and oriented, she had an unremarkable mood and affect, her thinking process was clear, her thought content was normal, and her memory was good. It was also determined she was mentally responsible, met retention requirements of Chapter 3, AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in separation proceedings. The findings show Axis I: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. Axis II: Diagnosis deferred. Axis III: Allergy problems per patient report. Current potential for self-harm, harm to others was low. Proposed Treatments: Treatment at this time is not deemed to be necessary. Precautions: None. Fitness for duty and continued service: Psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. Remarks: Applicant was seen for a Chapter 14 evaluation. She reported some symptoms of depression and anxiety related to her current situation. She psychologically meets retention requirements of Chapter 3, AR 40-501. She reported that she does not agree with the Chapter 14. She appears to understand right from wrong and is cleared for administrative action. j. On 8 February 2006, she completed a statement indicating that the commander’s adverse action taken against her was purely retaliatory and in violation of Army policy. She also provided her rebuttal comments that pertained to the records of counseling she received. k. On 9 February 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effects of such a separating, the rights available to her, and the effect of any action taken by her in waiving her rights. She elected to have her case considered by board of officers, personal appearance before an administrative separation board, consulting, and civilian counsel, and to submit a statement in her own behalf. l. On 27 February 2006, she was notified to appear before an administrative separation board as she requested. The initial board was to convene on 17 March 2006. m. On 21 April 2006, an administrative separation board of officers convened to consider the applicant's case in her absence. Although she was not present her counsel was. The administrative separation board found by a preponderance that the applicant’s conduct constitutes commission of a serious offense under paragraph 14-12c of AR 635-200. She violated Article 90 and 91 of the UCMJ in that she willfully disobeyed the lawful orders of both 1st and LTC . The administrative separation board recommended that she be eliminated from the service by unanimous vote. The board also recommended the applicant receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. l. On 25 April 2006, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendation of the administrative separation board conducted on 21 April 2006 and directed the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of AR 635- 200, Chapter 14, Section III, Paragraph 14-12c, Commission of a Serious Offense. The separation authority ordered her discharge will be characterized as Other than Honorable and she will receive an Other than Honorable Discharge Certificate. m. Orders 117-0500 dated 27 April 2006, U. S. Army Combined Arms Support Command, Fort Lee, discharged her effective 28 April 2006. n. She was discharged on 28 April 2006. Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, misconduct, serious offense of AR 635-200 with a characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). She was assigned a separation program designator code (SPD) of “JKQ” (misconduct-commission of a serious offense). She completed 11 months and 3 days of active service this period. * Block 13 (Decorations, Medal, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized): Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, and the Army Service Ribbon. * Block 24 (Character of Service) Under Other Than Honorable Conditions * Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) Misconduct, (Serious Offense) o. On 23 April 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to upgrade the characterization of her discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge; however, it concluded that the reason for her separation was both proper and equitable and the board voted not to change it. p. She was issued a new DD Form 214 that shows Block 24 (Character of Service) Under Honorable Conditions (General) and Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) Misconduct-Serious Offense that Voided her previous DD Form 214. q. On 3 June 2019, ADRB voted to upgrade the characterization of her discharge to Honorable and change the reason to Secretarial Authority under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, with an SPD code of JFF Secretarial Authority and issue a new DD Form 214. On 12 April 2006, a medical summarization/opinion rendered by an attending psychiatrist with a medical center, indicates an “Axis I” diagnosis of Major depression, Single Episode,” and that the applicant was admitted for depression and anxiety; that at the time, she was unable to adjust to the demands of military life and would be unable to function adequately in the Army; and that an expeditious separation from the army was recommended. r. On 29 July 2019, she was issued a new DD Form 214 that shows in Block 24 (Character of Service) Honorable and Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) Secretarial Authority. s. On 11 November 2019, a staff member at ARBA requested additional information from the applicant that support her issue of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). No response as of 11 December 2019. 5. By regulation (AR 635-200), Chapter 14 -12(c) (Commission of a Serious Offense) provides that Soldiers are subject to separation for commission in a serious offense. Commission of a serious military or civil offense if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge would be authorized separation. 6. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. Applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting a medical discharge for PTSD. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor reviewed this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s completed DD Form 293 and supporting documents, her ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), her separation military documentation, the active duty medical record (AHLTA), and the VA electronic medical record (JLV). b. Review of active duty electronic medical records (AHLTA) reveal in service diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, Major Depression, Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, and Cognitive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. c. Applicant underwent a Chapter 14 Mental Status Evaluation on 27 January 2006 that listed a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. The evaluation noted that the applicant met medical retention standards and was cleared for administrative separation. Applicant was psychiatrically hospitalized twice in April 2006 for depression and anxiety. Following her hospital discharges, she was re- evaluated by a psychiatrist in BH who maintained that applicant met medical retention standards and was cleared for administrative separation. d. Review of VA electronic medical record (JLV) indicates that the applicant is 70% service connected for PTSD related to MST. The VA has also diagnosed applicant with Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia, Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct, and Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified. e. After review of all available information, there is no evidence to support that applicant had an unfitting psychiatric condition at the time of discharge. While the VA has service connected her for PTSD, the VA conducts evaluations based on different standards and regulations which do not address whether a medical condition met or failed Army retention criteria or if it was a ratable condition during the period of service. There is sufficient evidence to support that applicant met medical retention standards at the time of discharge. Therefore, applicant’s request for a referral to the military disability evaluation system for a behavioral health condition is not supported. KURTA FACTORS- Not applicable, since applicant is requesting medical discharge. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and the medical review, the Board concurred with the advisory official finding there is no evidence to support the applicant had an unfitting psychiatric condition at the time of discharge. The Board noted, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the applicant met medical retention standards at the time of his discharge. The Board recognized the applicant’s request for referral to the DES for a behavioral health condition, however it is without merit. Furthermore, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant a change in the narrative reason for separation. Based on this, the Board denied relief. 2. The Board agreed the VA applies its own polices and regulations to make service connection and rating determinations. It is not bound by determinations made by the Army. With that, unlike the VA, the Army’s determination of fitness and its mandatory application of VA ratings is a snapshot in time whereas the VA can make service connection and rating determinations throughout the veteran’s life. The VA provides post-service support and benefits for service-connected medical conditions. The VA operates under different laws and regulations than the Department of Defense (DOD). In essence, the VA will compensate for all service-connected disabilities. 3. The Board determined DES compensates an individual only for service incurred condition(s) which have been determined to disqualify him or her from further military service. The DES has neither the role nor the authority to compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions which were incurred or permanently aggravated during their military service; or which did not cause or contribute to the termination of their military career BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING X X X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decisions of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Numbers: * AR20070007549 on 11 September 2008 * AR20090002446 on 3 September 2009 * AR20180009139 on 3 June 2019 I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Chapter 14-12(c) (Commission of a Serious Offense) of that regulation provides that members are subject to separation for commission in a serious offense. Commission of a serious military or civil offense if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge would be authorized separation. d. Chapter 5-3 (Separation for Convenience of the Government), Secretarial plenary authority states Separation under this paragraph is the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. Secretarial plenary separation authority is exercised sparingly and seldom delegated. Ordinarily, it is used when no other provision of this regulation applies, and early separation is clearly in the best interest of the Army. Separations under this paragraph are effective only if approved in writing by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary’s approved designee as announced in updated memorandums. Secretarial separation authority is normally exercised on a case-by-case basis but may be used for a specific class or category of Soldiers. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 635-5 (Separation Documents), prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active-duty service or control of the Active Army. The DD Form 214 is a summary of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear- cut record of all current active, prior active, and prior inactive duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. The information entered thereon reflects the conditions as they existed at the time of separation. The general instructions stated all available records would be used as a basis for preparation of the DD Form 214. The specific instructions for: a. Block 24 (Character of Service) characterization or description of service is determined by directives authorizing separation. Proper completion of this block is vital since it affects the Soldier’s eligibility for post-service benefits. Only six standard characterizations in this block are authorized: honorable, under honorable conditions (general), under other than honorable conditions, bad conduct, dishonorable and uncharacterized. b. Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) is based on regulatory or other authority and can be checked against the cross reference in Army Regulation 635–5–1. 3. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors, when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions, and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 4. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole, or in part, to: mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; sexual harassment. Boards were directed to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part to those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for that misconduct which led to the discharge. 5. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief based on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190013080 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1