1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 1 July 2014 and 4 December 2015 b. Date Received: 6 July 2015 and 9 December 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, since her discharge proceedings started prior to her receiving an Article 15 for minor offenses, she does not understand why her discharge would be general when the reason for her separation was physical standards. The applicant contends that her NCOs knew how to get her worked up so they would harass her behind closed doors, which she believes is a form of hazing. When she finally said something to them about the harassment, she received an Article 15. The applicant contends that the Article 15 should not have affected her discharge nor resulted in her educational benefits being revoked. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses. Electronic medical records revealed diagnosis of Dysthymia, Anxiety and an Adjustment Disorder; however, the presence of behavioral health conditions during the time period of misconduct does not explain or directly mitigate her misconduct. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 August 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: Physical Standards / AR 635-200 / Chapter 13-2E / JFT / RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 31 August 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 12 July 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: failed two record Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFTs) (3 April 2013 and 25 April 2013); and, disrespected an NCO, failed to obey a lawful order on three occasions, derelict in the performance of her duties, and provided a false statement (on or about 3 April 2013 and 25 April 2013). (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 12 July 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 16 July 2013 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 28 February 2012 / 4 years and 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-2 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 1 year, 6 June, and 3 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 12 June 2013, for failing to obey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (8 April 2013 and 23 April 2013), being disrespectful in deportment toward a noncommissioned officer (8 April 2013), failing to follow a lawful order issued by the garrison commander (25 April 2013), derelict in the performance of her duties (10 April 2013), and for making a false statement to a noncommissioned officer (25 April 2013). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended) and extra duty for 14 days. Numerous DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling), dated between 5 April 2013 and 13 September 2013, for disobeying an order, insubordination, unprofessional military appearance, disobeying barracks policy, APFT failures, providing false statement, recommendation for Article 15 and for a recommendation for chapter proceedings. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 17 May 2013, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could appreciate the difference between right and wrong and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the administrative proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Dysthymic Disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 293, dated 1 July 2014 and 4 December 2015; DD Form 214; and a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated 2 June 2015. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13-2e states in pertinent part, that separation proceedings will be initiated for Soldiers without medical limitations that have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test. The reason for discharge will be shown as physical standards. The service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance for failure to meet physical standards will be characterized as honorable or general, under honorable conditions. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members’ discharges. “Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre-existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service.” “Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Correction boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Correction Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.” 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant’s record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because of unsatisfactory performance which diminished the quality of her service. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. The applicant contends that she was harrased by members of her chain of command; however, she had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge. The applicant contends she was already being processed for separation at the time she received an Article 15, therefore, it should not have been considered in her separation proceedings. However, the applicant was notified of intent to separate her from the military on 12 July 2013. The commander noted the misconduct for which she received the Article 15 on 12 June 2013. Furthermore, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with her overall service record. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow access to educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 August 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214/Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH – Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police – PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150011218 1