1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 28 June 2015 b. Date Received: 6 July 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 and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, her new platoon sergeant, SFC M.V.R, told her that she did not like her and did not want people like her in her Army. Anything the applicant did or was accused of doing, led to the applicant receiving a counseling statement. The applicant attended a different base for religious services and she believes this is what led her platoon sergeant to mistrust her. She asked every female in her company to attend the religious services scheduled on Fridays; however, no one wanted to attend with her. Therefore, the applicant states that she was counseled for going to religious service without a battle buddy. Due to the excessive counseling she was discharged for a pattern of misconduct. The applicant alleges her platoon sergeant, who was also in charge of equal opportunity, was later discharged in part for religious discrimination against her. Her platoon sergeant told her that she was not attending service, but going to party instead. The rabbi that led the service attested to the fact that the applicant was attending service every time she had left the base to attend service. 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 an Adjustment Disorder. MSE from July 2013 revealed no diagnosis and applicant was psychiatrically cleared. 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA/ RE-3 / General, Under Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 2 October 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 September 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: wrongfully took money from her roommate (28 October 2012); failed to be at her appointed place of duty (2 and 3 May 2013); exceeded her monthly alcohol rations (3 May 2013); and, violated the USFK curfew policy (30 June 2013). (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 9 September 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 13 September 2013 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 22 November 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-3 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 1 year, 10 months, and 11 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWTSM, ASR, KDSM, OSR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: Numerous DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling), dated between 7 November 2012 and 27 August 2013, for taking money from her roommate without authorization, recommendation for punishment under the UCMJ, failure to report to her place of duty at the appointed time, exceeding ration allowance, failure to obey curfew, and initiation of separation proceedings. CG Article 15, dated 30 January 2013, for wrongfully appropriated money of a value of about $10.00 (28 October 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $396.00 pay, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. CG Article 15, dated 22 July 2013, for failing to go to appointed place of duty at the time prescribed (2 and 3 May 2013), violated Battalion Policy #9 and 2 I.D. Policy #10-1 regarding curfew (30 June 2013), and wrongfully violated Ration Control Policy (2 May 2013). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 14 days and an oral reprimand. DA Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 22 July 2013, reflects the applicant reported that she was being seen by a doctor at mental healh. Report of Mental Status Evaluation (DA Form 3822), dated 31 July 2013, reflects the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. The applicant had the capacity to understand and participate in the evaluation and is mentally responsible. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application, dated 28 June 2015; DD Form 214; and a partial copy of her case separation file. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. Paragraph 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, Pattern of Misconduct. 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 and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 the quality of her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Pattern of Misconduct,” and the separation code is “JKA.” Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends that she was harrased and discriminated 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. Further, the evidence provided by the applicant supported the reason for her discharge. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge. The applicant contends that her discharge was based on the excessive counselings she received from her platoon sergeant that told her that she did not like her and did not want people like her in her Army. However, 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 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 AR20150011348 1