IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 February 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220007166 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to either an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge or an Honorable discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: •DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) •Self-authored statement •Enlisted Record Brief •DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) •Character reference •Medical statement •Unofficial College transcripts FACTS: 1.The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S.Code (USC), Section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of MilitaryRecords (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is inthe interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2.The applicant states, in effect, her discharge should be upgraded because shesuffered from undiagnosed anxiety during her period of service. Her cortisol levels havealways been high, which leads to fight or flight responses. As a result of the challengesshe faced while serving, she chose flight. She still served her 4 years as an Armyspouse by supporting her husband who was on active duty. She supported him mentallywhen he returned from deployment to Iraq, which led to her getting post-traumaticstress disorder (PTSD). In 2019, she was diagnosed with anxiety, panic attacks,depression, and PTSD. She is very passionate about helping Veterans and iscontinuing her education with the hopes of becoming a therapist for them. An upgradeddischarge would help her to achieve that goal. 3.Following a period of honorable service in the U.S. Army Reserve, the applicantenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years on 15 April 2005. Upon completionof initial entry training, she was assigned to a unit at Fort Hood, Texas. She was promoted to the rank/grade of private/E-2 on 15 October 2005. 4.DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) show the applicant's unit reported changes in herduty status as follows: •15 November 2005 – from Present for Duty (PDY) to Absent Without Leave(AWOL) •5 December 2005 – from AWOL to Dropped from Rolls (DFR) •10 December 2005 – from DFR to PDY •20 December 2005 – from PDY to AWOL •27 December 2005 – from AWOL to DFR •18 January 2006 – from DFR to PDY 5.On 19 January 2006, the applicant underwent a command directed mental statusevaluation to determine whether she was suitable for administrative discharge under theprovisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted AdministrativeSeparations), paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct (Serious Offense). Theevaluation revealed no evidence of altered thought process or any other mental healthcondition that would explain the behavior that resulted in the initiation of thisadministrative action and the applicant was psychologically cleared for anyadministrative action deem appropriate by command. 6.The applicant underwent a pre-separation medical examination. a.A DD Form 2697 (Report of Medical Assessment), dated 19 January 2006, showsshe indicated that her overall health had not changed since her previous medical assessment/physical examination. She also indicated she had not suffered any injuries or conditions or been treated for such. At the time, she did not intend to seek Veterans Administration (VA) disability. b.A DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 19 January 2006, showsshe indicated she had not experienced any medical injuries or conditions during her period of service. c.A DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 19 January 2006, showsshe had no significant defects or diagnoses and was determined to be qualified for service. 7.An administrative flag was initiated to suspend favorable actions for the applicant,effective 20 January 2006, because she was pending elimination from service. 8.A DD Form 2329 (Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial) shows the applicantwas tried by summary court-martial on 1 March 2006 and found guilty of twospecifications of desertion from her unit: from 15 November 2005 until 10 December2005 and from 20 December 2005 until 18 January 2006. Her sentence included:reduction to the rank/grade of private/E-1, forfeiture of $849.00 pay for one month, andhard labor without confinement for 45 days. The sentence was adjudged on 1 March2006. 9.On 10 March 2006, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant ofher intent to initiate actions to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct (serious offense). The specificreasons for this action were the applicant's two periods of desertion. She advised theapplicant she was recommending that she receive a discharge UOTHC. The applicantacknowledged receipt of the notification the same day. 10.On 13 March 2006, the applicant consulted with counsel and was advised of thebasis for the contemplated actions to separate her and its effects; of the rights availableto her; and the effect of any action taken by her to waive her rights. She waivedrepresentation by consulting military counsel and elected not to submit statements inher own behalf. 11.On 14 March 2006, the applicant's immediate commander formally recommendedher separation prior to the expiration of her term of service under the provisions of ArmyRegulation 635-200, Chapter 14, by reason of commission of a serious offense. 12.The applicant's intermediate commander recommended approval of therecommendation for separation with the issuance of a discharge UOTHC. 13.On 23 March 2006, the separation authority approved the recommended dischargeaction and directed the applicant be discharged with a service characterization ofUOTHC. 14.Orders and the applicant's DD Form 214 show she was discharged on 29 March2006. Her DD Form 214 shows, in: (1)block 12 (Record of Service) – She completed 9 months and 22 days of netactive service this period. (2)block 18 (Remarks) – She had not completed her first full term of service. (3)block 24 (Character of Service) - Her characterization of service was UOTHC. (4)block 25 (Separation Authority) - The authority for her separation was ArmyRegulation 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c. (5)block 26 (Separation Code) - Her Separation Program Designator Code was"JKQ." (6)block 27 (Reentry Code) - Her Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code was "3." (7)block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) - The narrative reason for herseparation was "Misconduct (Serious Offense)." (8)block 29 (Dates of Time Lost During This Period) – She had time lost from15 November 2005 until 9 December 2005 and from 20 December 2005 until 17 January 2006. 15.The applicant provides the following documents, available in their entirety for theBoard: a.A character reference letter, dated 30 March 2022 by someone who served onactive duty with the applicant; wherein, he praised her physical fitness, knowledge of her military occupational specialty, and leadership skills. He also noted her significant contributions as a military spouse and mother who provided support to other new military wives in their times of need. b.A letter rendered by a healthcare professional on 30 March 2022 ,which showsthe applicant was established as a patient since 15 November 2019 and was being seen through Telehealth on a monthly basis. She was diagnosed with PTSD (unspecified) and generalized anxiety disorder. c.An unofficial college transcript printed on 4 April 2022, that shows the applicantwas pursuing an undergraduate degree in Liberal Arts. 16.Clemency guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records(BCM/NR) does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles toguide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority to ensure each case will beassessed on its own merits. In determining whether to grant relief BCM/NRs shallconsider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policychanges, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions,official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed,and uniformity of punishment. This includes consideration of changes in policy, wherebya service member under the same circumstances today would reasonably be expectedto receive a more favorable outcome. 17.Published guidance to the BCM/NRs clearly indicates that the guidance is notintended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board willdetermine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether itsupports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider theapplicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of thepetition. 18.MEDICAL REVIEW: a.The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of her under otherthan honorable conditions discharge to either general or honorable. b.The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMRRecord of Proceedings (ROP). Pertinent to this advisory are the following: (1)Applicant states, in effect, her discharge should be upgraded due to undiagnosedanxiety during her period of service. She describes a history of high cortisollevels resulting in flight or fight responses, and while serving “she chose flight.”She asserts she supported her husband when he returned from deployment toIraq which led to her getting PTSD which was reportedly diagnosed in 2019. (2)Following a period of honorable service in the USAR she enlisted in the RA on 15April 2005. (3)Her record indicates she was coded as AWOL on 15 November 2005; DFR on 5December 2005; PDY on 10 December 2005; AWOL on 20 December 2005;DFR on 27 December 2005; and PDY on 18 January 2006. (4)On 19 January 2006 she completed a mental status evaluation for potentialseparation under AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct(serious offense). The evaluation was unremarkable, with no indication ofmitigation and she was cleared for administrative action. (5)She completed a pre-separation medical examination. As described in the ROPthe evaluation and its various associated forms dated 19 January 2006 wereunremarkable and she was deemed qualified for service. (6)DD Form 2329 shows she was found guilty of two specifications of desertionfrom her unit, from 15 November to 10 December 2005 and from 20 December2005 to 18 January 2006. On 10 March 2006 her commander notified her ofintent to separate under AR 635-200 Chapter 14-12c for these two periods ofdesertion. (7)Her DD214 shows she was discharged on 29 March 2006 via AR 635-200Chapter 14-12c, UOTHC. (8)The applicant provides documents as summarized in the ROP. Included is aletter rendered by a health care professional dated 30 March 2022 which showscare beginning in November 2019 and diagnoses of PTSD and generalized anxiety disorder. c. Supporting DocumentsAll supporting documents in file reviewed. Applicant asserts PTSD and other mental health issues associated with her application. A statement dated 30 March 2022 from Take Back Your Life () indicates applicant has been a patient of the author since 15 November 2019 and has been diagnosed with PTSD, unspecified and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Of note, there is no index trauma or date of onset specified for the PTSD diagnosis nor a date of onset for the Generalized Anxiety Disorder diagnosis. Report of Medical History dated 23 September 2004 was unremarkable for any mental health concerns as was associated Report of Medical Examination. Report of Mental Status Evaluation dated 19 January 2006 resulted in no diagnosis on Axis I or Axis II, mental status was unremarkable. She was deemed to meet retention requirements of AR 40-501 and cleared for administrative action. Report of Medical Assessment, Report of Medical History, and Report of Medical Examination all dated 19 January 2006 were all unremarkable for any psychiatric concerns and she received a S1 on her PULHES profile. Of note on her Report of Medical History, a self-report of concerns across multiple medical domains, she answered no on all item 17 symptoms which include nervous trouble (anxiety/panic attacks), trouble sleeping, depression or excessive worry, and having been evaluated/treated for a mental health condition. d. AHLTAThe Army electronic medical record, AHLTA, was reviewed; file was under name Tara Sue Castellanos. Her problem list/diagnostic history is void of any significant psychiatric conditions. She completed an MSE for chapter evaluation on 19 January 2006 as described above. She was cleared for separation and no diagnosis was given. The encounter note did not reference any anxiety or other concerns at that time. Social Work Evaluation dated 17 April 2008 was apparently associated with care received as a dependent/spouse and resulted in diagnosis of Other Specified Family Circumstances. In general, the note describes an incident in which it appears the applicant slapped her husband and he slapped her back; the provider opined “increased emotionality is due to the pregnancy;” consultation with OB-GYN and marriage counseling was recommended. A query of HAIMS did not return any documents for the applicant. e.JLV Available VA records were reviewed via JLV. The file for this SSN was under the name Tara Sue Castellanos. Records do not indicate any service-connected conditions and are void of clinical encounters other than those pulled from AHLTA and reviewed above. Kurta Questions: 1.Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that mayexcuse or mitigate a discharge? Yes. The applicant asserts PTSD and mental healthconditions associated with the circumstances of his discharge. She has receiveddiagnoses of PTSD and Generalized Anxiety Disorder from a mental healthprofessional. 2.Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes, per theapplicant’s assertion. 3.Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partial.The applicant asserts mitigation due to PTSD and mental health factors at the timeof her offense/discharge. Her assertion alone is worthy of consideration by theBoard. She provides records showing diagnoses of PTSD and Generalized AnxietyDisorder. However, the limited documentation does not show date of onset of eitherdiagnosis or the index trauma for the PTSD diagnosis. Her application implies thePTSD diagnosis may be associated with coping with the impact of her husband’sdeployment to Iraq. However, under typical circumstances, this would not qualify asthe Criterion A trauma necessary to establish a diagnosis of PTSD and the applicanthas not provided data to show otherwise. The incident described in AHLTAregarding an altercation with spouse, if considered a potential index trauma,occurred in 2008 after her period of service. There is also no evidence to suggestGeneralized Anxiety Disorder was present at the time of service, and herservice/medical records are void of any such indication. The agency BH advisorappreciates the circumstances and accomplishments of the applicant but ultimatelycannot find reasonable evidence of a psychiatric condition at the time of service tosupport nexus and mitigation. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents and the evidence found within the military record, the Board determined that relief not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board concurred with the finding of the Agency Behavioral Health Advisor in that there is no evidence of in-service mitigating factors to overcome the misconduct and although the applicant provides supporting documentation on her own behalf, it is insufficient to considered a mitigating factor. Based on a preponderance of evidence available for review, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. 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 Board determined 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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned Microsoft Office Signature Line... 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. Title 10, USC, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Title 10, USC, Section 1556 provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) is provided a copy of all correspondence and communications, including summaries of verbal communications, with any agencies or persons external to agency or board, or a member of the staff of the agency or Board, that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides that 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. Paragraph 3-7b states 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 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions (a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline). Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter; however, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if merited by the Soldier’s overall record. 4. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service 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 UOTHC 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 representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be 5. 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; Traumatic Brain Injury; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Boards are 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 misconduct that led to the discharge. 6. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military DRBs and 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. a. 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 on the basis of 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. b. 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//