IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 January 2024 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230008210 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable * a personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) * Self-Authored Statement 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 she was sexually harassed in grey intelligence in Gulfport. a. It started when she was 6 years old and she was incarnated and sexually harassed then paid not to think and tortured. b. She had an incident in Kindergarten which led to her bowel movements. c. She mentions “Sexual harassment, grey intelligence in sky in Gulfport; the woman in the Bible with male child, stars over my head clothed in the sun, harassed, incarcerated, with paid earshot and [incomplete sentence].” On the back page of the DD Form 293, she adds “microphone pyenosis [sic] every day, clinical psychologist who diagnosed me was harassing me since I was sic year sold.” 3. A review of the applicant’s service records shows: a. She enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 22 May 2001 for a period of 8 years. b. She entered active duty on 1 August 2001 to attend initial entry training. c. She was awarded her military occupational specialty of 71L, Administrative Specialist, on 17 October 2001. d. She was released from active duty on 17 November 2001 and issued a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which shows in: * item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized): Army Service Ribbon * item 23 (Type of Separation): Release from Active-Duty Training * item 24 (Character of Service): Uncharacterized * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation): Completion of Required Active Service e. The applicant’s record contains Orders 02-318-0004, dated 14 November 2002 which reassign her from her current assignment to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) for unsatisfactory performance. f. The applicant’s record contains Orders C-03-307618, dated 11 March 2003, which show she was voluntarily reassigned from the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) to an active unit in the USAR. g. The applicant’s record is void separation information. h. The applicant’s record contains Orders 05-046-0001, dated 15 February 2005, which show the applicant was discharged from the USAR. The orders also show: * Authority: Army Regulation (AR) 135-178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations) * Effective Date: 12 February 2005 * Component: USAR * Type of Discharge: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions i. The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge. On 12 July 2013, the ADRB, after carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and denied relief. 5. By regulation, Soldiers are subject to separation under the provisions of paragraph AR 135-178 for various reasons. The specific discharge information is unavailable for the applicant. 6. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and her service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 7. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. Background: The applicant is requesting an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant’s application contains numerous incoherent statements; hence her assertions are unclear. b. The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP). Below is a brief summary of information pertinent to this advisory: * The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 22 May 2001. * She entered active duty on 1 August 2001 to attend initial entry training. * She was released from active duty on 17 November 2001 and issued a DD Form 21. It shows that she was released after the completion of her required active service (uncharacterized). * The applicant’s record contains Orders 02-318-0004, dated 14 November 2002 which reassign her from her current assignment to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) for unsatisfactory performance. * The applicant’s record contains Orders C-03-307618, dated 11 March 2003, which show she was voluntarily reassigned from the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) to an active unit in the USAR. * The applicant’s record contains Orders 05-046-0001, dated 15 February 2005, which show the applicant was discharged from the USAR. The orders also show indicated she was discharged from the USAR under AR 135-178 (enlisted administrative separation), effective 12 February 2005, with an Under Other than Honorable Conditions characterization of service. * The applicant’s record is void separation information. * The ADRB denied her request for relief on 12 July 2013. c. Review of Available Records Including Medical: The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor reviewed this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s completed DD Form 293, ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), DD Form 214, some documents from her service record, and a self-authored statement. The applicant’s record is void of separation information. The VA electronic medical record and DoD health record were reviewed through Joint Longitudinal View (JLV). Lack of citation or discussion in this section should not be interpreted as lack of consideration. d. The applicant’s DD Form 293 contains numerous incoherent statements. Under why she is requesting an upgrade or change she stated, “Sexual harassment grey intelligence for sky in Gulfport,” “The woman in the Bible with male child”, “Stars over my head clothed in the sun” and “Harassed incarnated with paid a earshot” and two other statements that are not complete/unclear. On the second page, she wrote “microphone psychosis (sic) ever day, clinical psychologist who diagnosed me was harassing me since I was six years old.” Her self-authored statement contains additional statements that give evidence the applicant may be experiencing a thought disorder. Her thought process appears disorganize and delusional (ex. first sentence reads “It started out when I was six years Barack Obama incarnated with me and sexually harassed me paid me not think and tortured me with HIV took my rainbow from me reason me with witchcraft…”). Based on what can be gleaned from these statements, this advisor will presume she is asserting, at minimum, “other mental health concerns” as well as sexual harassment and/or assault (potentially in childhood). e. The applicant’s time in service predates consistent use of electronic health records (EHR) by the Army, hence no EHRs are available for review. Her service record and supporting documents did not contain her service treatment records (STR). No other records were provided to substantiate that any mental health concerns were present during her time in service, nor that any mitigating experiences (sexual assault or harassment) occured. A request for information from CID did not produce any records or data about any military sexual trauma. f. Per the applicant’s VA EHR, she is not service connected, she holds no mental health diagnoses with the VA, and she has had minimal engagement with the healthcare through the VA. However, given the characterization of her discharge, she would not typically be eligible for most VA benefits. The applicant appears to have had only phone call encounters with the VA, starting in 2021-2022. There are encounters and notes documenting phone calls and messages with the applicant which indicates she has made similar statements to medical providers as she did in her application. In a nurse case manager telephone note dated 14 December 2022, the applicant left a message speaking of the “arch of the rainbow” and “vertical rainbow” and “first lady of the United States” and “President Barack Obama.” It appears she had been looking for mental health care support, but the VA has had difficulty with her no showing appointments, difficulty making direct contact with her, and difficulty getting her to follow up with her primary care so that the referral could be made. Through review of JLV, this applicant did have “Community Health Summaries and Documents” available, though there was no record of a mental health diagnoses, nor mental health encounters. No other medical records were provided. There is no current evidence that the applicant has ever been diagnosed with a potentially mitigating condition. Though, her records and application indicate a possible thought disorder. g. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, this Agency Behavioral Health Advisor cannot provide an opine regarding potentially mitigating conditions or experiences without documentation of the specific misconduct that led to his discharge. In addition, there is insufficient evidence she experienced any potentially mitigating mental health conditions or experiences during her time in service. Kurta Questions: (1) Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate a discharge? Unclear. The statements in her application are unclear, though she references topics of sexual trauma and a psychologist. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Unclear. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Unable to opine. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, this Agency Behavioral Health Advisor cannot provide a complete opine regarding potentially mitigating conditions or experiences without documentation of the specific misconduct that led to her discharge. That said, there is currently insufficient evidence the applicant had a mitigating condition or experience during her time in service. 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, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal and clemency determinations requests for upgrade of her characterization of service. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and the medical review, the Board concurred with the advising official finding insufficient evidence she experienced any potentially mitigating mental health conditions or experiences during her time in service. 2. The Board determined the applicant has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence an error or injustice warranting the requested relief, specifically an upgrade of the under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. This board is not an investigative body. The Board determined despite the absence of the applicant’s separation records, they agreed the burden of proof rest on the applicant, however, she did not provide any supporting documentation and her service record has insufficient evidence to support the applicant contentions of a discharge upgrade. Therefore, the Board denied relief. 3. Prior to closing the case, the Board did note the analyst of record administrative notes below, and recommended the correction is completed to more accurately depict the military service of the applicant. 4. The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 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: Except for the correction addressed in Administrative Note(s) below, the Board found 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. 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): The following documents are sufficient to justify correction of the applicant’s DD Form 214 without action by the Board: * DD Form 214, for the period 1 August 2001 through 17 November 2001, showing “Honorable” vice “Uncharacterized” 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 (AR) 135-178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. An honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally 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. If a Soldier’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as under honorable conditions. Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspect of the Soldier’s conduct or performance of duty outweighs positive aspects of the Soldier’s military record. c. Service may be characterized as under other than honorable conditions only when discharge is for misconduct, fraudulent entry, homosexual conduct, unsatisfactory performance, or security reasons. 3. AR 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents), currently in effect, prescribes policy and procedural guidance relating to transition management. Specifically, it references instruction related to the preparation of the DD Form 214. The DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. a. Paragraph 5-1f states that a DD Form 214 will be prepared for Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers completing active duty that results in the award of an MOS, even when the active duty period was less than 90 days (for example, completion of the advanced individual training component of ARNGUS Alternate Training Program or USAR Split Training Program). b. Paragraph 5-6 states: "When a RC Soldier successfully completes initial active duty training the character of service is Honorable unless directed otherwise by the separation approval authority." 4. 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. 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; 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. 6. 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 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. 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. 7. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20230008210 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1