IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:  9 September 2022

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20220003103


APPLICANT’S REQUEST:  The applicant requests:

*	Her under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable 
discharge
*	The narrative reason for her separation be changed to an unspecified, but 
presumably more favorable reason

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 293 (Applicant for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of 
the United States)
*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Self-authored statement
*	Letter from the Army Review Boards Agency, 
*	1,573 pages of Progress Notes extracted from her Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) medical records

FACTS:

1.  Standard of Review. When arriving at its findings and making its determinations, the 
Board shall review the petition for requested relief independent from any previous 
petitions submitted to the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for 
Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).

2.  The applicant states her discharge was inequitable because her misconduct was 
directly related to lack of trust and feelings of safety that originated from military sexual 
trauma (MST) and other experiences while serving in the Army. The MST she 
experienced led to the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which, in 
turn, resulted in her inability to cope.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 November 1997. Upon completion 
of training, she was awarded military occupational specialty 91B (Medical Specialist) 
and was assigned to a unit in Kitzingen, Germany. She was promoted to the rank/grade 
of private first class (PFC)/E-3 on 1 November 1998.

4.  On 15 October 1999, she accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the 
provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Her punishment 
consisted of: reduction to the rank/grade of private (PV2)/E-2; forfeiture of $251.00 for 
one month; extra duty for 4 days; and restriction for 4 days. Her offenses were as 
follows:

*	Violation of Article 91, on or about 28 September 1999, for willfully disobeying a 
lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (NCO)
*	Violation of Article 91, on or about 11 August 1999, for being disrespectful in 
deportment toward an NCO

5.  On 30 December 1999, she accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, of the 
UCMJ. Her punishment consisted of: reduction to the rank/grade of `private (PV1)/E-1 
and forfeiture of $479.00. Her offenses were as follows:

*	two counts of Violation of Article 91, on or about 28 November 1999, for willfully 
disobeying a lawful order from an NCO
*	Violation of Article 91, on or about 28 November 1999, for being disrespectful in 
deportment and in language toward an NCO
*	Violation of Article 91, on or about 29 November 1999, for willfully disobeying a 
lawful order from an NCO
*	Violation of Article 86, on or about 29 November 1999, for without authority, 
failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty

6.  On 3 February 2000, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of 
his intent to initiate actions to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, by reason of 
misconduct – commission of a serious offense. The reasons for his proposed action 
were for being disrespectful to NCOs on multiple occasions, disobeying lawful orders 
from NCOs on multiple occasions, and failing to report to her appointed place of duty 
which resulted in NJP. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification 
memorandum on the same date.

7.  On 8 February 2000, the applicant consulted with counsel and was advised of the 
basis for the contemplated actions to separate her, the rights available to him, and the 
effect of any action taken by him to waive his rights. She acknowledged she may 
encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if she received a general discharge. She 
elected to waive her right to consulting counsel and elected not to submit a statement in 
her own behalf.

8.  On 8 February 2000, the applicant's immediate commander formally recommended 
her separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, 
paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct. The applicant's intermediate commander 
concurred with these recommendations.

9.  On 23 February 2000, the separation authority approved the recommendation and 
directed the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
paragraph 14-12, by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense. He further 
directed that the applicant would be discharged with a service characterization of under 
honorable conditions (general).

10.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 10 March 2000. Her DD Form 214 
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms she was discharged 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12, by reason of 
misconduct. Her service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general) 
with separation program designator (SPD) code "JKN", and reenlistment eligibility (RE) 
code "3." She was credited with completion of 2 years, 3 months, and 21 days of net 
active service this period.

11.  The applicant's record is void of evidence that she was a victim of MST or 
diagnosed with PTSD or any other behavioral health or medical condition during her 
period of service.

12.  The applicant provides the following documents rendered after her discharge from 
the Army. These documents are available in their entirety for the Board's consideration.

     a.  A self-authored statement wherein she recounts an evening when she was 
sexually assaulted by an unknown assailant whom she presumes was another Soldier 
because it occurred in the military barracks. The following morning, she sought medical 
treatment at an emergency room in a neighboring city. She did not want to go the aid 
station on post because she worked there. She was treated for chlamydia and crabs 
and tested for other diseases. She was filled with rage and would look at the face of 
every man on post in the hope of recognizing her assailant because she wanted to kill 
him or at least beat him so he could feel the pain he gave her and take his life as he 
took a big part of hers. She never told anyone about the incident, but from that point on 
she demanded that she and her friends always go out in a group and never leave 
anyone alone with a man. She never felt safe and was always on her guard.

     b.  1,573 pages of Progress Notes extracted from her DVA medical records which 
show, in part, that she has been treated for diagnoses of PTSD, migraine headaches, 
and tinnitus.

13.  Clemency guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records 
(BCM/NR) does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to 
guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority to ensure each case will be 
assessed on its own merits. In determining whether to grant relief 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. This includes consideration of changes in policy, whereby 
a service member under the same circumstances today would reasonably be expected 
to receive a more favorable outcome.

14.  Published guidance to the BCM/NRs clearly indicates that the guidance is not 
intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will 
determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it 
supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the 
applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the 
petition.  

15.  MEDICAL REVIEW: 

The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting 
documents and the applicant’s medical records in the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal 
Technology Application (AHLTA) and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) and made the following 
findings and recommendations: The applicant is service connected for PTSD related to 
MST and other in-service events. Given the nexus between trauma and difficulty with 
authority and avoidance, the basis for separation is mitigated. Accordingly, an upgrade 
to Honorable with Secretarial Authority is recommended.
    a.  The applicant was discharged on 10 March 2000 under AR 635-200 14-12c, by 
reason of misconduct, with a General characterization. The basis for separation was 
multiple occasions of disrespect towards NCOs, disobeying lawful orders from NCOs, 
and failing to report to her appointed place of duty. The applicant is requesting an 
Honorable characterization with a more favorable narrative reason for separation. The 
applicant contends she was a victim of MST which created distrust and a sense of being 
unsafe leading to the misconduct.
    b.  Due to the period of service, active-duty electronic medical records are void. Hard 
copy medical records were unavailable.
    c.  The applicant is 100% service connected for PTSD related to MST and other in-
service events. In December 2010, the applicant was brought to the VA ER by police 
after arguing with her mother and attempting suicide. The applicant reported 
polysubstance abuse requesting substance detox and treatment. The VA referred the 
applicant with successful detox. 
    d.  In January 2011, the applicant reported anger, anxiety, and sobriety since 
December. The applicant reported rage starting in 1999 related to a violent relationship 
with her children’s father. The applicant stated in 2006, the perpetrator was incarcerated 
after a significant domestic event. The applicant noted when angry she carves on 
herself, throws things, and destroys property. Employment was difficult to maintain due 
to her anger. In February, the applicant noted a significant history of traumas beginning 
at age 6 when she was raped at the playground by teenage boys, physical abuse by ex-
boyfriend, MST, and raped at age 30. The applicant reported outside of the suicide 
attempt in December, she attempted at age 8 resulting in therapy. The applicant 
indicated substance abuse started before the age of 10 related to trauma. The applicant 
diagnosed Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), 
Polysubstance Dependence, and Borderline Personality Disorder and started 
medication. In March, the applicant noted ongoing substance issues related to 
nightmares, using to stay awake or fall asleep. The applicant continued medication 
management including substance curbing medication. The applicant had periods of 
sobriety, but also relapsed.
    e.  In June 2012, the applicant was referred to a substance Intensive Outpatient 
Program (IOP). In September, PTSD was added and started trauma treatment. In 
November, the applicant was arrested and pending six felony charges; three counts of 
manufacturing and delivery and three counts of possession with intent to deliver crack 
and heroin. The applicant noted while she maintained sobriety, she couldn’t give up the 
“hustling lifestyle.” 
    f.  In January 2013, the applicant had a Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam with 
diagnoses of PTSD, Opioid Dependence, and Borderline Personality Disorder. The 
applicant reported traumas included her stepfather being inappropriate with her, being 
raped at age 6, physical abuse by her children’s father, MST, exposure to a rape victim 
in-service, cleaning up after a Soldier’s suicide, and rape at age 30. In terms of the 
MST, the applicant reported in the summer of 1998 she was raped by another Soldier 
and the individual was never located. The applicant reported to survive the event, she 
pretended to be unconscious and then played dead when he started strangling her with 
intent to kill her. Additionally, the applicant noted in early 2000 a SGT raped and killed 
an Albanian girl and she was in the field hospital when the girl was brought in. This led 
her to re-experience her rape at age 6 and MST. Lastly, the applicant indicated in early 
2000, she was part of the team who recovered the body of a Soldier who committed 
suicide in a port-a-potty and saw the “blood, gore, the soldier’s head blown off, and his 
face not recognizable.” 
    g.  In January 2014, the applicant sought assistance from the Veteran’s Justice 
Outreach (VJO) program noting court was amenable to transferring her case to 
Veteran’s Treatment Court. In February, the applicant was detained pending 
confirmation of acceptance into a residential program. In March, the applicant was 
placed in a residential program with diagnoses of Heroin and Cocaine Dependence and 
PTSD. However, after 18 days she was discharged for a program offense, she was 
locked in the bathroom with a male, and reincarcerated pending another program. In 
April, she was released to a new residential program, but discharged and incarcerated 
in May for using. In June, the applicant was released to a third residential program with 
successful completion in August and diagnoses of Heroin Dependence, PTSD, and 
Mood Disorder. The applicant started IOP treatment in additional to traditional outpatient 
care. 
     h.  In September 2015, the applicant was reincarcerated for probation violations, 
alcohol use and diluted UA. She was released to increased treatment and weekly court 
check-ins. 
    i.  In January 2016, she was reincarcerated for another violation and informed she 
had one more opportunity before her case would be transferred back for felony 
adjudication. In November, the applicant successfully completed Veteran’s Court. 
    j.  In January 2019, the applicant successfully completed probation and reported 
using marijuana for anxiety. The applicant continues with treatment with diagnoses of 
PTSD and Borderline Personality Disorder.
    k.  Kurta Questions
(1)	Does the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or 
mitigate the discharge?	

(a)	YES. The applicant is service connected for PTSD related to MST and 
other in-service trauma events.
(2)	Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service?
(a)	YES. The applicant experienced MST and other in-service trauma events 
for which she is 100% service connected for with diagnosis of PTSD.
(3)	Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge?
(a)	YES. Given the nexus between trauma and difficulty with authority and 
avoidance, the basis for separation is mitigated by the MST and in-service 
events resulting in PTSD.

(4)	Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge?	

(a)	YES. The applicant’s MST and related PTSD outweighs the discharge.
BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief 
was 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 considered the applicant's statement, her 
record of service, the frequency and nature of her misconduct, the reason for her 
separation, a medical review, and whether to apply clemency. One possible outcome 
was to deny relief as the applicant did not provide letters of support and evidence of 
post-service achievements, and the contentions were not credible. However, based 
upon a preponderance of evidence, the majority of the Board supported an upgrade 
because of guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests, and determined 
that the character of service the applicant received upon separation should be corrected 
as a matter of clemency.

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:X	:X	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:X	:	:	DENY APPLICATION



BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a 
recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of 
the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a 
DD Form 214 for the period ending 10 March 2000 showing:

*	Characterization of Service: Honorable
*	Separation Authority: AR 635-200, CHAP 5-3
*	Separation Code: JFF
*	Reentry (RE) Code: RE3
*	Narrative Reason for Separation: Secretarial Authority


		 

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, U.S. Code (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 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.  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 separation codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. This 
regulation prescribed that the separation code "JKN" was the appropriate code to 
assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
Chapter 14, based on misconduct, commission of a serious offense. Additionally, the 
SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table established that RE code "3" was the proper 
reentry code to assign to Soldiers separated under this authority and for this reason.

5.  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 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 appropriate to upgrade the characterization 
of the applicant's service.

6.  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.

7.  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//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20220003103


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1