1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 August 2016 b. Date Received: 31 August 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) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, on 25 September 2011, her brother and mother were shot on their front porch. Her brother, who was an honor roll student and played football, died. She took him to school on the weekdays, occasionally visited his school to check on his performance, and took him to the mall anytime he did well on an exam. Many would say she was his second mother. They were very close and his death was the reason she left Chicago, in addition to fearing for her life. After the shooting, the family still received numerous threats. Prior to this family tragedy, she was an honor student at a State University and serving in the US Army Reserve. Her life was great-she attended drill one weekend per month and worked at the University Veteran Affairs Office. Her family was targeted by another large family which included gang members and drug dealers. Although the man responsible for the shooting is now in prison for life, his family is a continued threat to her family. The man who orchestrated the shooting was never brought to justice. Because it was a never- ending family war, she relocated immediately. She was not in her right state of mind once the shooting occurred. She knows now that she should have contacted her unit and requested to be transferred--she was desperate to get away. She has since sought counseling, held employment, paid back her enlistment bonus, and graduated from a university and received her bachelor's degree in chemistry. She asks the Board to consider her past credentials, letters of recommendation, and her current character. She learned of the type of her discharge when she applied for government jobs. She was never contacted during the discharge process, nor given an opportunity to explain her situation to a separation board. The applicant also detailed the events and circumstances surrounding her two-year mobilization stabilization agreement and being reassigned to a unit scheduled to deploy (months prior to the death of her brother), at the time when she had not been home for even a year since basic training. Her recruiter referred the unit to USAREC. Her unit was clearly shown she was not eligible to be deployed until two years after she graduated from basic training. However, once this issue was cleared up, she had become the "'girl who was scared to deploy'" and the "black sheep." She feels this issue may have "played a major role in [her] rank being reduced and the type of discharge [she] received." Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the patient has no behavioral health diagnoses in AHLTA or JLV. She has no VA service- connected disability percentage in JLV and shows no VA contacts in JLV. Her records in AHLTA and JLV did not show a pre-separation MSE. She did complete screens in 2009 that did not reflect complaints of psychiatric problems. At least one in mid 2009 endorsed that she felt safe at home. In all she showed five outpatient encounters. The last note in AHLTA on 09 June 2009 for a gynecological visit during which the provider noted she had "No psychological symptoms and not thinking about suicide. No homicidal thoughts." The murder of her brother occurred later and outside the time envelop for the AHLTA and JLV visits. The packet did not have medical records for any difficulties that occurred after the murder of her brother. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 October 2017, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's severe family matters and post service accomplishments and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. This action entails restoration of grade to E-4/SPC. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: NA / AR 135-178 / NA / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 5 April 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 August 2008 / 8 years (USAR) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 31B10, Military Police / 4 years, 8 months d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NIF g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Discharge Orders, dated 29 March 2012 i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NIF / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 22 August 2016; discharge orders; letter of support/character reference, dated 22 August 2016; Certificate of Death Record, dated 25 September 2011; four news articles, dated 27 September 2011, 29 September 2011, 31 January 2012, and 3 December 2014; civilian court mother's Victim Impact Statement with letter, dated 5 December 2014; civilian court applicant's Victim Impact Statement, dated 5 December 2014; universities Display Transcript and Unofficial Transcripts, dated 22 October 2012 and BA degree confer date of 12 December 2015; applicant's resume; and letter of support/character reference, dated 26 May 2016. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Applicant's documentary evidence shows: her Bachelor of Arts degree being conferred on 12 December 2015; making the Dean's List for three semesters; earning the Epsilon Beta Award; earning first place award for environment science; being nominated employee of the year in spring 2015; being consistently employed; and currently being employed as a laboratory assistant manager with a university. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation (AR) 135-178 governs procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army Reserve. Chapter 13 provides in pertinent part, that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. AR 135-91 states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills accrued during a one-year period and attempts to have the Soldier respond or comply with orders or correspondence have resulted in the Soldier's refusal to comply with orders or correspondence; or a notice sent by certified mail was refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undeliverable; or verification that the Soldier has failed to notify the command of a change of address and reasonable attempts to contact the Soldier have failed. Discharge action may be taken when the Soldier cannot be located or is absent in the hands of civil authorities in accordance with the provisions of AR 135-91, paragraph 2-18, and Chapter 3, section IV, of AR 135-178. The characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier's service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. Army policy states possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general (under honorable conditions), under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized if the Soldier is in entry-level status. However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the US Army Reserve. However, the record contains a properly constituted discharge orders. This document identifies the characterization of the discharge as under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of AR 135-178, and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant contends that a family tragedy that involved the loss of her younger brother 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 she was not in her right state of mind once the shooting occurred; she knows now that she should have contacted her unit and requested to be transferred; she was desperate to get away; and she has since sought counseling. While the applicant did not directly raised behavioral health issues resulting from her family tragedy, a careful review of her contentions and documentary evidence, such as her victim impact statement, indicates behavioral health issues symptoms may have resulted, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to her misconduct. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues existed and that they 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 she was never contacted during the discharge process of her imminent discharge, nor given an opportunity to explain her situation to a separation board. 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 sufficient 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. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet and medical records of any behavioral health diagnoses following her family tragedy) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of her service prior to the incident(s) that led to her discharge, and her post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that her complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of her characterization of service. Additionally, the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 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 the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 October 2017, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's severe family matters and post service accomplishments and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. This action entails restoration of grade to E-4/SPC. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New Discharge Order: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General, Under Honorable Conditions 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: E-4/SPC 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 AR20160016608 6