1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 6 October 2015 b. Date Received: 13 October 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 to reflect “medical health, other.” The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, all of her rights were violated by her chain of command and that her diagnoses are PTSD-noncombat, major depression and anxiety. The applicant alleges that her company and battalion commanders insisted that she be diagnosed with adjustment disorder and border personality disorder so that she can medically be proxy out of the Army. Under both disorders, the applicant states that she had a difficult time adjusting and acclimating to a situation, place and/or gathering. The applicant further states that she was discharged while she was in medical treatment for suicide attempt and ideation. She never resisted nor refused any rehabilitation because she was in a psychiatric hospital receiving medical help and attention for her diagnoses. The applicant contends that she was a medical failure at Walter Reed Navy Medical and 4 North Fort Belvoir hospital because her command focused on how to discharge her out and dealing with legal rather than assisting, ensuring, and providing support while she was hospitalized. The applicant states that she attempted to end her life multiple times. The applicant alleges that her company commander purposely put “patterns of misconduct” because she did not want her to receive any benefits. Her chain of command was fully aware that “Adjustment Disorder” and “Mental Health” could be placed in block 28 on the DD Form 214, without violating HIPPA, which would entitle her to unemployment benefits and excuse her legally from completing her first term contract. The applicant contends that her mental disorders are the primary reasons why she was not able to complete her first term enlistment contract. The applicant states that she should not have to continue to suffer, both physically and mentally, and be homeless and unemployed. She was not given the proper amount of time or rehabilitation to correct her deficiency that her command deemed as “patterns of misconduct.” 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. The Active Duty electronic medical records revealed that the applicant had diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features (July 2013) in response to occupational problems to include concerns of discrimination and harassment. Hospitalized June 2013 in Germany and May 2015 in Petersburg, VA/Walter Reed/Fort Belvoir following suicide attempts. Non-compliant and not forthcoming with information in treatment sessions. Long standing interpersonal difficulties, feeling treated unfairly, and verbal aggression. No diagnosis of PTSD in medical records and screened negative April 2015 on Mental Status Evaluation. Applicant did receive PTSD diagnosis in December 2015 from the VA based on claims of MST in Basic training and AIT which were unfounded by CID. 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: 30 July 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 May 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed that she would likely continue to be a disruptive influence in future duty assignments and her potential for advancement or leadership is unlikely. (3) Recommended Characterization: General, Under Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 June 2015 (Note: It was indicated by the applicant’s legal counsel that matters pertaining to the separation proceedings would be provided once she had access to a computer.) (5) Administrative Separation Board: N/A (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 7 July 2015 / General, Under Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 31 January 2011 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 27 / Bachelor’s Degree / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-4 / 31B10, Military Police / 4 years and 6 months d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWTSM, NOPDR, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 10 September 2014, for disrespect toward a commissioned officer (7 May 2014) and being disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer on three separate occasions by calling 1SG W.B. a “pathetic loser,” by stating to SFC J.K. “why not tell lies to a new commander about a problem Soldier,” and by calling SFC M.Y.K. “a piece of shit and unworthy of ever being a so called NCO and leader” and another derogatory name (7 May 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $474.00 pay per month for one month (suspended), extra duty for 14 days, and an oral reprimand. Numerous DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling) for misconduct and violations of the UCMJ. U.S. Army Crime Records Center Memorandum, dated 21 June 2016, reflects they have no files pertaining to the applicant, which can be considered a “no record” response for USACIDC records pursuant to the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 29 April 2015, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. The applicant was diagnosed with (Axis I) Adjustment Disorder unspecified. It is also noted that the applicant had recent homicidal ideations, as well as suicidal thoughts. The applicant was screened for PTSD and TBI; however, tested negative for both. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 6 October 2015; self-authored letter; DD Form 214; and the following: St Cloud VA Progress Notes, dated 28 November 1983; Chapter 14, Separation for Misconduct Information Paper; Fort Lee Transition Center Memorandum, dated 14 July 2015; Discharge Orders 195-0500, dated 15 July 2015; and, Two character letters. 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (drug abuse). 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 to reflect “medical health, other.” 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 have been retained. The applicant contends that a change in the reason for the discharge would allow for ……. However, the SPD code of "JKQ" is the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged for pattern of misconduct. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. The applicant contends that all of her rights were violated by her chain of command and that her company commander purposely put “patterns of misconduct” because she did not want her to receive any benefits. 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 applicant alleges that her company and battalion commanders insisted that she be diagnosed with adjustment disorder and border personality disorder so that she can medically be proxy out of the Army. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what she believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. The applicant contends she should have been medically discharged; however, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends that her mental disorders are the primary reasons why she was not able to complete her first term enlistment contract. The applicant’s service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service Adjustment Disorder; 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 29 April 2015, 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. It appears the applicant’s chain of command determined that although she was suffering from adjustment disorder, she knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully. The applicant states that she should not have to continue to suffer, both physically and mentally, and be homeless and unemployed. The applicant contends that she should not have to continue to be homeless and unemployed. However, eligibility for housing supportive program benefits for Veterans 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. Moreover, all veterans at risk for homelessness or attempting to exit homelessness can request immediate assistance by calling the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans hotline at 1-877-424-3838 for free and confidential assistance. The applicant contends that she was not afforded the proper amount of time or opportunity for rehabilitation to correct her deficiency; however, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements states, the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. After reviewing the applicant’s discharge packet, the separation authority properly waived the rehabilitative requirements. Moreover, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting herself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. 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 AR20150017487 1