IN THE CASE OF:  
 
  BOARD DATE: 2 January 2024 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230004139 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 2 October 2008, to show in: 
 
• item 24 (Character of Service), from under honorable conditions (general) to honorable  

• item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), from Misconduct (Drug Abuse) to a more favorable reason  


 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States). 
 
FACTS: 
 
1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 
 
2.  The applicant states, in effect, she has been in therapy for years. She would really like to be able to get into school and be a good example for others and a role model for the youth. She has military sexual trauma (MST) and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from her last duty station, which basically gave her no choice but to get out after reaching out for help. The fact that she still has a general discharge and the reason, replays in her head daily. She never really wanted to get out, but it was literally the last result and life/death for her at that time.  
 
3.  A review of the applicant’s service record shows: 
 
a.  A DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document) shows she enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 2 July 2007.  
 
b.  A DD Form 214 shows she entered active duty for 92G (Food Service Operation) training on 24 July 2007. She was released from active-duty training on 5 December 2007.  
 
 c.  A DD Form 4, which shows she enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 February 2008.  
 
 d.  An electronic copy of DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document – Drug Testing) shows the applicant tested positive for THC (marijuana) on 15 April 2008.  
 
 e.  She received a developmental counseling (DA Form 4856) on 15 April 2008 for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 16 March 2008 to 15 April 2008.  
 
 f.  DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 2 May 2008, shows the applicant underwent a medical examination for separation. It shows she was taking medication for back pain and was allergic to Augmentin. The form also shows the applicant marked 'yes' to depression and seeking medical care for depression.  
 
 g.  On 14 May 2008, she received developmental counseling for abuse of illegal drugs. The DA Form 4856 shows a urinalysis was conducted for the abuse of illegal drugs within five hours of the applicant showing for duty, after spending 31 days AWOL. On 24 April 2008, the first sergeant received the results which showed she tested positive for THC (marijuana).  
 
h.  On 14 May 2008, she accepted non-judicial punishment, under the provision of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being AWOL from on or about 16 March 2008 to on or about 15 April 2008. Her punishment included 14 days of extra duty and 14 days restriction. 
 
i.  DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 5 June 2008, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. She was cleared for any administrative action deemed necessary by her command.  
 
 j.  On 9 September 2008, the applicant's immediate commander notified her of his intent to initiate separation actions against her under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c (2), by reason of commission of a serious offense. The commander listed the following reason for the proposed action:  tested positive for marijuana during a unit urinalysis. The commander informed the applicant that he was recommending she receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge and notified her of her rights.  
 
 k.  On 10 September 2008, the applicant acknowledged receipt of her commander’s separation notification. The applicant acknowledged she was advised by her consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate her for commission of a serious offense under AR 635-200, chapter 14, and its effects; of the rights available to her. She understood the following: 
 
1)  She understood that if she had less than 6 years of total active and Reserve military service at the time of separation and was being considered for separation for commission of a serious offense, she was not entitled to have her case heard by an administrative separation board unless she was being considered for a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  
 
  2)  She elected not to submit statements in her own behalf. 
 
  3)  She understood that she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to her. 
 
  4)   She further understood that, if she received a discharge certificate/character of service which was less than honorable, she may make application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ARBA) or the ABCMR for upgrading; however, an act of consideration by either board did not imply that her discharge would be upgraded.  
 
  5)  She understood that she would be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the United States Army for a period of two years after discharge.  
 
 l.  The applicant's immediate commander formally initiated separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c (2), and recommended the applicant receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On an unspecified date, the intermediate commander endorsed the immediate commander's recommendation. 
 
 m.  On 22 September 2008, the separation authority approved the recommended discharge, directed the applicant be issued an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, and directed the applicant would not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.   
 
 n.  The applicant was discharged on 2 October 2008. Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c (2), by reason of misconduct – drug abuse. Her service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general), Separation Code JKK, Reentry Code 4). She completed 7 months and 6 days of net active service during the covered period. This form also shows in: 
 
• Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized):  National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Army Service Ribbon 

• Item 18 (Remarks):  Member has not completed first full term of service 


 
4.  On 6 July 2016, the ADRB determined that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged. Accordingly, her request for a change in the character and/or reason for discharge was denied. The ADRB stated the applicant could reapply to the ADRB for a personal appearance hearing or to the ABCMR for a correction of records.  
 
5.  Regulatory guidance states when an individual is discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200 for misconduct, an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service is normally appropriate. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.  
 
6.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicants petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 
 
7.  Based on the applicant's petition referring to MST and PTSD, the Army Review Board Agency medical staff provides a written review of the applicant's medical records, outlined in the "MEDICAL REVIEW" section of this Record of Proceedings. ARBA does not routinely provide copies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory opinions), and reviews to Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants (and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication. 
 
8.  MEDICAL REVIEW: 
 
    a.  The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (EMR) (AHLTA and/or MHS Genesis), the VA electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) application, and the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS).  The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations:    
    b.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of her 2 October 2008 discharge characterized as under honorable conditions (general).  She states: “I've been doing therapy with the service for some years now.  I really would like to be able to get into school and be a good example for others. I've been trying to actually get the nerve to submit for my general discharge to be upgraded. If you take a look at my records, you can see I have MST and PTSD from my last duty station, which basically 
gave me no choice but to get out after reaching out for help upon arriving there. The fact that I still have this General discharge and reasoning replays in my head daily. Knowing I never really actually wanted to get out and that it was literally a last result and life/death for me at that time. Please assist me with this so that I can get into schooling and that I can be good role model for the youth. Thank you.” 
    c.  The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case.  The applicant’s DD 214 for the period of Service under consideration shows the former USAR Soldier  entered active duty on 27 February 2008 and was discharged on 2 October 2008 under the separation authority provided by paragraph 14-12c(2) of AR 635-200, Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel (6 June 2005): Commission of a serious offense - Abuse of illegal drugs.  It shows no period of service in a hazardous duty pay area. 
    d.  A prior request for a discharge upgrade was unanimously denied by the ADRB on 6 July 2016 (AR20150007618).  Rather than repeat their findings here, the board is referred to the record of proceedings for that case.  Because this denial did not contain a medical advisory, this review will concentrate on evidence of a potentially mitigating mental health condition under liberal consideration polices as well as new evidence submitted with this application. 
    e.  The applicant received an Article 15 on 14 May 2008 for a period of absence without leave (AWOL) form 16 March thru 15 April 2008.  She tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on urinalysis performed on 15 April 2008.    
    f.  The EMR shows the applicant underwent a pre-separation mental status evaluation on 5 June 2008.  Positive findings included a guarded attitude, a mood of frustration, impaired judgement, impaired insight, and insufficient eye contact.  The provider stated she had no mental health conditions and cleared her for separation. 
    g.  On 16 June 2008, the applicant was diagnosed with depression and started on oral medication (citalopram).  From this encounter: “Patient in complaining of vague symptoms of insomnia, lightheaded, feeling tired and out of energy, loss of appetite, and feeling like she has a lump in her throat all the time. Patient also experiencing chest discomfort but denies any medical history. Pt does state that there has been an increase of family issues and personal problems. 
    h.  JLV shows she has been diagnosed with chronic PTSD due to military sexual trauma (MST) with a 70% VA service-connected disability rating. 
    i.  From an 8 December 2015 VA mental health evaluation: “Military trauma exposure (e.g., combat/violence, sexual trauma injury or   danger)? Yes: Verbal threats and sexual harassment from platoon SGT and the other  males in the unit.  An attempt at 
sexual assault but she able to defend  herself.  Males would enter her room without her permission.  Unable  to sleep. Requested unit transfer and request denied.” 
Kurta Questions: 
 
    (1)  Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge?  YES: PTSD due to Military Sexual Trauma 
 
    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service?  YES 
 
    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge?  YES: As this condition is associated with self-medication with alcohol and/or illicit drugs and avoidant behaviors, the condition fully mitigates the use of marijuana and period of absence without leave for which she was administratively separated. 
 
    j.  Given the history of MST, the medical advisor recommends the applicant’s discharge be upgraded to Honorable with narrative reason change to Secretarial Authority.  
 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
 
After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was partially warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, the applicant's record of service, the frequency and nature of the applicant's misconduct and the reason for separation.  
 
 a.  The evidence shows the applicant was discharged due to misconduct following her commission of a serious offense (drug abuse). She was issued a general, under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The Board considered the medical records, any VA documents provided by the applicant and the review and conclusions of the advising official. The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding sufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors to overcome the misconduct. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined an honorable discharge is appropriate under published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests.  
 
 b.  The Board noted that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation was assigned based on the fact that she was discharged under the provisions of chapter  14-12c of AR 635-200 due to commission of a serious offense (illegal drugs). Absent her serious misconduct, there was no reason to process her for separation. The underlying reason for her discharge was her misconduct. The only valid narrative 
reason for separation permitted under this chapter is “Misconduct” and the appropriate separation code associated with this discharge is JKK. 
 
BOARD VOTE: 
 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
 
: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
 
xx: xx: xx: GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
 
: : : DENY APPLICATION 
 
 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
 
1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing him a DD Form 214 for the period ending 2 October 2008 showing the character of service as Honorable.  
 
• Separation Authority: No Change 

• Separation Code: No Change 

• Reentry Code: No Change 

• Narrative Reason for Separation: No Change 


 
2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to changing the narrative reason for separation. 
 
  1/2/2024

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, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 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 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 
 
2.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  
 
a.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences without leave. 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 considered appropriate. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record. 
 
 b.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier'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.  
 
 c.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is used for a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  
 
3.  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. 
 
4.  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 regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandate relief but provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority.  
 
 a.  In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, Boards 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. 
 
5.  Section 1556 of Title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of the Army to ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) be provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (including summaries of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside the Agency that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored by ARBA civilian and military medical and behavioral health professionals and are therefore internal agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely provide copies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory opinions), and reviews to Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants (and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication. 
 
6.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct.   
 
a.  The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent 
evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.   
 
b.  The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions.  Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 
 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//