1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 December 2015 b. Date Received: 29 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, she desires the upgrade for educational purposes and benefits. She served honorable for just under five years without adverse actions, with the exception of two isolated incidents. Per the Board's Medical Officer, when a Soldier is being separated or retired for medical reason through the Integrated Disability Process (IDES) the Character of service is always Honorable. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 January 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was improper. The evidence in the record confirms that the applicant was discharged under Chapter 4, AR 635-40 and should have received an honorable characterization of service. Therefore, the discharge being improper the Board granted relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Disability, Temporary (Enhanced) / AR 635-40, Chapter 4 / SEK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 31 May 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Basis for Separation: On 28 February 2014, the physical evaluation board, found the applicant was physically unfit and recommended a rating of 70 percent and that the applicant's disposition be placed on the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL) and with a reexamination during November 2014. The unfitting condition incurred or was aggravated in the line of duty in a duty status authorized by 10 USC 1201(c) or 10 USC 1204; and was not due to intentional misconduct, willful neglect, or unauthorized absence. The unfitting condition was not permanent and stable. The applicant was diagnosed with a Depressive disorder, not otherwise specified; listed as posttraumatic stress disorder (VA diagnosis). (2) Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings: NIF (3) Applicant's Request: On 28 March 2014, the applicant concurred with the initial PEB findings and recommendation, and waived a formal hearing of her case. She did not request reconsideration of her VA ratings. (4) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: Orders 127-900, dated 7 May 2014, reassigned the applicant for separation processing. The applicant was released from assignment and duty because of physical disability incurred while entitled to basic pay and under the conditions that permit her placement on the TDRL. The effective date of retirement: 31 May 2014, with an SPD code of "SEK". / The orders did not reflect the characterization of service. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 September 2009 / 4 years / The applicant's service record is void of any reenlistment document or official orders retaining her on Active Duty past her ETS. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91L10, Construction Equipment Repairer / 4 years, 8 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: PEB findings as described in previous paragraph 3c. Order D011-81, dated 11 January 2016, reflects the applicant was removed from the TDRL and was permanently retired because of a permanent physical disability. The percentage of disability was 100 percent. The statute authorizing her retirement was 1201. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: PEB findings as described in previous paragraph 3c. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of a physical disability. Chapter 4 provides for the separation of enlisted Soldiers found to be unfit by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) due to a condition which occurred in the line of duty and not due to the Soldier's misconduct. Paragraph, 4-3, states Enlisted Soldiers subject to administrative separation except as provided below, an enlisted Soldier may not be referred for, or continue, physical disability processing when action has been started under any regulatory provision which authorizes a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. If the case comes within the limitations above, the commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier may abate the administrative separation. This authority may not be delegated. A copy of the decision, signed by the General Court Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA), must be forwarded with the disability case file to the PEB. A case file may be referred in this way if the GCMCA finds the following: (1) The disability is the cause, or a substantial contributing cause, of the misconduct that might result in a discharge under other than honorable conditions; (2) Other circumstances warrant disability processing instead of alternate administrative separation. A Soldier being considered for separation because of unsatisfactory performance (AR 635-200, chap 13), must be referred for disability processing upon approved recommendation of a MEB (AR 635-200, para 1-35a). Paragraph 4-24b, states based upon final decision of USAPDA or APDAB, USAPDA will issue retirement orders or other disposition. Paragraph 4-24b(1) provides that Soldiers not having sufficient time in service for retirement would be separated by reason of permanent retirement for physical disability under Title 10, USC 1201 or 1204. The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 635-40 will normally be honorable unless the Soldier is in an entry-level status. The service of Soldiers in an entry-level status will be uncharacterized. A Soldier is in an entry-level status if the Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service 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 a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment 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 characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors 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. Caution shall be exercised 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 available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends she had isolated incidents while on active duty, but her service was honorable. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged on 31 May 2014 and placed on the TDRL, effective 1 June 2014. The governing regulation states that an honorable characterization of service is normal when the Soldier is not in an entry level status. In accordance with the governing regulation, a Soldier being separated through the disability process would require a waiver from the general court-martial convening authority, if the Soldier were pending possible separation for other misconduct or administrative reasons. The applicant's service record is void of any waiver, or other evidence to indicate the applicant's disability retirement was not warranted. Disability retirements and retirements are considered to be equally honorable. Therefore, the service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 28, characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions), the correct entry should reflect honorable. The evidence of record confirms the separation authority approved the discharge by reason of disability and placed the applicant on the TDRL. On 11 January 2016, the applicant was permanently retired. 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 "SFK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, Chapter 4-24b (2), Disability, Temporary. It appears, the orders directing the applicant's placement on the TDRL, were in error by indicating the applicant's SPD code as "SEK." 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. Notwithstanding the administrative errors, based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. Board Determination: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 January 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was improper. The evidence in the record confirms that the applicant was discharged under Chapter 4, AR 635-40 and should have received an honorable characterization of service. Therefore, the discharge being improper the Board granted relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change f. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change Authenticating Official: 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 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20160000317 1