1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 May 2016 b. Date Received: 23 May 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 effect, that she should have received an honorable discharge. She unexpectedly gained custody of her brother and sister, she reported the situation to her command, but no help was available. Since her discharge, she has stayed out of trouble and desires the upgrade to further her education. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant has a behavioral health diagnosis (PTSD) which is mitigating for some of her misconduct. As PTSD is associated with avoidant behaviors, there is likely a nexus between her PTSD and her multiple offenses of being AWOL and failing to report. PTSD, however, does not mitigate the offenses of disobeying orders from a commissioned and noncommissioned officer, making a false statement or engaging in criminal mischief or criminal obstruction of breathing. JLV notes indicate she is 30 percent service connected for PTSD due to military and childhood experiences. She was also diagnosed with Depressive Disorder NOS. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 2 August 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 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 17 May 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 March 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: AWOL, between 10 January 2013 and 11 January 2013; AWOL, between 10 December 2012 and 4 January 2013, AWOL, between 24 August 2012 and 25 August 2012; She failed to report to her appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on approximately eleven separate occasions; She left her appointed place of duty without authorization on approximately two separate occasions; She disobeyed the orders of LTC O, 1SG R, and SGT K; She gave false official statements to CPT T, SFC W, and SSG C; and, She was charged by the Watertown Police Department with Criminal Obstruction of Breathing and Criminal Mischief on 8 April 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 March 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 March 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 January 2010 / 4 years, 30 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / NIF / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 25Q10, Multichannel Transmission Systems Operator-Maintainer / 3 years, 2 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (18 October 2010 - 27 September 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 9 April 2012, reflects the applicant was charged by the Watertown Police Department, on 8 April 2012, for Criminal Obstruction of Breathing and Criminal Mischief. Six Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 24 August 2012; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 25 August 2012; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 11 December 2012; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 4 January 2013; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 10 January 2013; and, From "AWOL" to "Hospitalized," effective 11 January 2013. CG Article 15, dated 24 September 2012, for being AWOL (between 24 and 25 August 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $758 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty and restriction for 45 days; and, an oral reprimand. On 16 November 2012, $435 pay of the suspended punishment was vacated. The vacation was based on the applicant making a false official statement on 24 October 2012. FG Article 15, dated 23 January 2013, for being AWOL (between 11 December 2012 to 4 January 2013); failing to obey a lawful order (16 November 2012); make a false official statement on two separate occasions (24 October 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $758 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty and restriction for 45 days; and, an oral reprimand. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 26 days (AWOL, 24 -25 August 2012; 11 December 2012 - 4 October 2013; 10 - 11 January 2013) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 February 2013, 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. The applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149, with all allied documents listed in block 9 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 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. 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 have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends that she was having family issues that affected her behavior and ultimately caused her to be discharged. 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. The applicant contends that she informed her chain of command of her situation, but never received any help. However, 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 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 2 August 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 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 AR20160009854 3