1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 30 December 2015 b. Date Received: 19 January 2016 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 pertinent part and in effect, she always believed the decision of her discharge was based on an NCO who had harassed her. She is now suffering from PTSD and is currently being treated by two separate mental health physicians. She was homeless after her discharge due to depression. The record indicates the applicant had a prior records review in 2003. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no records in AHLTA. Her VA records available in the JLV show that she is rated by the VA as having a 20 percent service connected disability. Her pre-discharge MSE cleared her for discharge and her pre-discharge medical gave her a S1 profile, even though she complained of a large number of psychiatric symptoms. The record, especially from time the time of her discharge, do not support mitigation. As represented in the records, she was a dishonest, unreliable Soldier with strong feelings of being unjustly treated by her command as evidenced by responses to counseling and multiple instances in which she refused to sign her counseling. The reasons for her VA diagnoses were often left mysteries, and she had relatively little aggressive treatment for any of her psychiatric diagnoses. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 April 2017, 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, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 22 July 2002 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 April 2002 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: received a CG Article 15 on 26 February 2002, for failing to report at her appointed place of duty and three offenses of failing to maintain sufficient funds. received a FG Article 15 on 14 March 2002, for wrongful using marijuana. been counseled on offenses of malingering, failing to obey an order, indebtedness, and failing to report to her appointed place of duty; and, If these charges had been referred to a General Court-Martial, she could have received a Bad-Conduct or Dishonorable Discharge. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 14 May 2002 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Conditionally waived, 14 May 2002, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a General (Under Honorable Conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 July 2002 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 March 2000 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 2 years, 4 months, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for making and uttering worthless checks; failing to maintain sufficient funds; malingering; failing to obey an order or regulation; being required to move back into the barracks due to financial and personal situations; indebtedness; failing to be at her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; and performance being substandard. CG Article 15, dated 26 February 2002, for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (28 January 2002) and making and uttering worthless checks on three separate occasions (12 October, 15 November, and 1 December 2001). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, 14 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand. FG Article 15, dated 18 March 2002, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 22 December 2001 and 22 January 2002). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $552, 45 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 April 2002, psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by her command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Physical Profile, dated 15 January 2002, reflects the applicant had a permanent profile due to multiple conditions, including hyperthyroidism, asthma, and depression. Report of Medical History, dated 23 January and 1 February 2002, respectively, indicates the applicant noted behavioral health issues, which she attributed to her physical health and initially for her miscarriage, and the examiner noted the applicant being seen by mental health providers. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Forms 149 and 293. 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, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 and the issues submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record further 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 on Active Duty. The applicant contends that she was harrased and discriminated by a member 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 suffering from and currently receiving treatment for PTSD. However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that she is being treated for PTSD. However, a careful review of the applicant's record shows the applicant's behavioral health issues and symptoms existed. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to her misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. The applicant contends that she was homeless after her discharge. 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 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 5 April 2017, 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: 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 AR20160002884 4