1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 April 2016 b. Date Received: 16 May 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, while her conduct was less than military standards from 2 February to 24 May 2007, there were extraneous circumstances beyond her control or capabilities that led to the consequential spiraling of her unfortunate misconduct and poor judgment. The applicant addressed her accomplishments, such as completing the combat lifesaving course and being promoted to E-3. She asserts that while maintaining her physical fitness, she accidently fell while hiking, which caused an extreme injury and her command had prepared her for a medical discharge. However, she chose to tough it out but the resulting pain affected her behavior, her interpersonal relationships with her chain of command, and how she managed stress. She further asserts that while her husband was deployed she dealt with a miscarriage all by herself, and the event changed her outlook. She continued with her MEB and mental health appointments; however, the unit's lack of leadership traits agitated her emotional and mental stability, causing her PTSD to "snowball." Her PTSD, and her leadership's abuse of power and "constant harassment created every bit of defiance," which "only edged" her "PTSD further and further." Her requests to speak with a chaplain were ignored, and her MEB process was halted due to UCMJ disciplinary actions. Since her discharge, her pain lessened but the demands of working two jobs aggravated her back. She has since limited her job to one, and enrolled in college. Her injury and PTSD have affected her family's quality of life, and she is "held back in many ways" due to her current discharge. An upgrade would provide healthcare benefits by VA. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, there is insufficient evidence to change her discharge based for behavioral health reasons. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 14 July 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 14 June 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 1 June 2007, the following charges were preferred, with recommendations to refer to trial by a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge: Charge I: Five specifications of violating Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL on 2 February 2007 until 1 March 2007; 7 March 2007 until 21 March 2007; 17 April 2007 until 24 April 2007; 15 May 2007 until 17 May 2007; and 22 May 2007 until 24 May 2007 Charge II: Violation of Article 134, UCMJ, for breaking restriction on divers occasions between 15 May 2007 and 24 May 2007 (2) Legal Consultation Date: 1 May 2007 (sic); however, charges were referred on 1 June 2007, the day she waived her right to personal appearance prior to military magistrate's review of her pretrial confinement (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 June 2007 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 15 September 2005 / 3 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / GED / 119 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 1 year, 6 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for pattern of AWOL; being restricted to post; further restrictions imposed being AWOL; failing to obey a lawful order; failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on multiple occasions; and being AWOL. Confinement Order, dated 25 May 2007, indicates the applicant was placed in a pretrial confinement, effective 25 May 2007, and violations of Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL on five separate occasions, and disobeying her commissioned officer on two separate occasions. Charge Sheet described at the preceding paragraph 3c(1). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 71 days (AWOL: 2 to 28 February 2007, for 27 days; 7 to 20 March 2007, for 14 days; 17 to 23 April 2007, for 7 days; 15 and 16 May 2007, for two days; and 22 and 23 May 2007, for two days. Military Pretrial Confinement: 25 May 2007 to 12 June 2007, for 19 days) / the applicant returned to her unit on each of her absences, except for the latter AWOL period when she was discovered being at the hospital, she refused to return to her unit, and MPs were called to apprehend her. Subsequently, she was placed in pretrial confinement. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Statement provided by a psychiatric clinician, dated 4 April 2016, indicates the applicant had been receiving treatment for PTSD diagnosis. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 27 April 2016, with her self-authored statement; four character reference statements; DD Form 214; and VA letter, dated 25 February 2010. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, since her discharge, she pursued two employments and enrolled in college. Further, her character reference statements indicate that she is a very active member and volunteers at her community. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. AR 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial." The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and she indicated she understood she could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran's benefits. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. Hrecord documents no other acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority. The applicant's contentions regarding her behavioral health issues and the resulting pain from her injury had affected her behavior, her interpersonal relationship with her chain of command, and how she managed stress, were carefully considered. A careful review of the documentary evidence in the applicant's record indicates the applicant had been receiving treatment for behavioral health issues symptoms after her discharge, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to her misconduct. 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. Furthermore, the applicant contends that medical issues as a result of an injury contributed to her discharge from the Army. However, the service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any injury; thereby, a medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because her unit's lack of leadership traits, abuse of power, constant harassment, and her requests to consult with a chaplain were ignored. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she may have been unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character. They all recognize her good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The applicant contends that she was harassed 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. In consideration of the applicant's post-service accomplishments and quality of her service prior to the incidents of misconduct, the Board can find that her accomplishments and complete period of service were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of her characterization of service. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow her to receive medical treatment through VA health benefits. However, eligibility for veterans' 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 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 14 July 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160009257 1