1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 27 October 2015 b. Date Received: 2 November 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, she experienced personal trauma during her service. Her chain of command looked down on her the day she decided to get married and have her first child. The applicant was given a pregnancy profile, but it was not honored. She was forced to do intense physical training, work long hours around toxic fumes, and was harassed by her superiors being reminded daily that she was on her way out of the military. When she refused to do corrective intense physical training, she was given an Article 15. She was placed on extra duty where she was required to shovel snow for hours, which caused severe bleeding. She was in the emergency room several times and diagnosed with “threatened abortion.” The applicant contends that due to the unethical treatment and stress she endured, her son was born prematurely and now suffers with Mixed Developmental Disorder. The applicant states that she loved her job as a chaplain assistant and was the best one on post. It was not until she got married and became pregnant that she became the worst chaplain assistant. The applicant would like an upgrade so that she can go to school to pursue a major in sociology and help others. She did everything she could to be the best she could be. Per the Board’s Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant does not have mitigating behavioral health conditions for the offenses leading to her separation from the military. The military and VA electronic medical records were reviewed. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 December 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: Unsatisfactory Performance / AR 635-200 / Chapter 13 / JHJ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 August 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 27 June 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: failed four consecutive record Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT); multiple counts of disrespect towards a commissioned officer; and, multiple counts of failure to report to her appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 June 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 18 July 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 February 2011 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 56M10, Chaplain Assistant / 1 year, 11 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) Scorecard, dated between 21 September 2011 and 9 February 2012, reflects the applicant consistently failed to meet the minimum standards in the sit-up and 2-mile run events during all four documented APFTs. Physical Profile, dated 2 March 2012, reflects the applicant was issued a temporary profile for a normal pregnancy, with an expected delivery date (EDD) 9 October 2012. FG Article 15, dated 7 March 2012, for failing to obey a lawful order (10 February 2012) and for posting disrespectful comments to a public Facebook account about a Chaplain, which was prejudicial to good order and discipline in the Armed Forces (11 February 2012). The punishment portion of the form (second page) was missing from the record. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 June 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, dated between 16 August 2011 and 12 June 2012, for APFT failures, failing to maintain weight/allowed body fat percentage, AWOL, disobeying a lawful order, disrespect towards a commissioned officer, and intent to separate. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA Disability Rating Decision letter, dated 12 January 2015, reflects the applicant was assigned a 50 percent disability rating for PTSD and major depressive disorder, with anxious distress. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application with all allied documents listed in the “supporting documentation information” section of the application. 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 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this Chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. Army policy states that a general (under honorable conditions) discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. 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 “JHJ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, Unsatisfactory Performance. 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.” 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 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, such that she should be retained on active duty. The applicant contends that she was harassed 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. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge. The applicant contends the Veterans Administration has granted her a service connected disability for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 13 June 2012, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates she was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully. The applicant contends that she had good service. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for her accomplishments. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow 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 7 December 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change e. Restoration to Grade: No Change Authenticating Official: Microsoft Office Signature Line... Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO – Noncommissioned Officer 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 NOS – Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA – Veterans Affairs