1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 September 2016 b. Date Received: 14 September 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, and to change the narrative reason for her discharge, including its corresponding codes. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, her discharge was inequitable because her Constitutional rights were violated. She filed EO complaints and sought medical treatment. She was continually targeted until eventually she was discharged. After filing an EO complaint due to toxic Command Climate and targeting of female trainees by male and female NCOs, hostilities became worst so she fled. Upon returning on 3 September 2014, she was separated and isolated with a male AIT Platoon Sergeant, SSG X, in violation of TR 350-6, paragraph 2- 10. SSG X kept her awake until 0400 the next day. She was deprived of seven hours of sleep and not given meals as required per TR 350-6, paragraph 3-6. She was ordered to testify without her Article 31 rights or DA Form 3881, in violation of AR 15-6, paragraph 3-7. She asserts SSG X, not authorized as an Investigating Officer per AR 15-6, paragraph 2-Ic, had no authority to administer statements per Article 136. She never received negative counseling or incidents until after she was removed from class, transferred to another unit, and placed on hold without reason. She immediately felt targeted. At a self-referred mental health appointment on 16 July 2014, she indicated she felt targeted by a female Sergeant, which continued and caused her to submit a formal EO complaint. The EO Representative indicated a Focus Group but it was never created. These regulatory violations and inhumane treatments were only small fractions of issues trainees who were targeted faced. She takes responsibility for her actions; however, manifested stress, isolation, sleep deprivation, and unprofessional treatment by noncommissioned officers are mitigating circumstances. She is currently on course to becoming a nurse, but requests an upgrade with a favorable separation and reentry code to allow her the opportunity to serve her country and take care of Soldiers, possibly as a military nurse. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, case file, AHLTA and JLV were reviewed. Based on the available information, it is the Agency psychiatrist's opinion that the applicant has a mitigating behavioral condition (PTSD due to childhood abuse exacerbated by military service) for some of the offenses leading to her misconduct. As PTSD is associated with avoidant behaviors, there is a nexus between her PTSD and the offenses of going AWOL and failing to report on two occasions. There is no nexus between PTSD and the offense of going off post and lying about her status. There is also no nexus between PTSD and engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a trainee. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 November 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: 2 October 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 September 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: She was absent without leave from 1 September 2014 to 3 September 2014. On 5 July 2014, she went off-post while in Phase IV status and she falsified an official record by indicating she was in Phase V status. On 25 June 2014 and 25 July 2014, she failed to report to formation. On 31 August 2014, she violated AR 600-20 by engaging in a relationship with a trainee that was not required by the training mission. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 September 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 September 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 March 2014 / 3 years, 29 weeks (The date entered on DD Form 214 is incorrect according to the applicant's enlistment documents but reflects an adjustment due to time lost.) b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / Bachelor of Science Degree / 116 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / None / 5 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Negative counseling statements for being recommended for an involuntary separation; being absent without leave; failing to following an order or regulation; violating brigade policy by wearing civilian cloths and going off-post; making a false official statement; failing to be at her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time; missing movement; lacking motivation for continued military service; lacking reasonable effort; demonstrating unsatisfactory performance; violating uniform and appearance regulation; being found kissing another trainee in an unlit area of a PT field; violating TRADOC Regulation that specifically forbids any relationships between Soldiers in training status; and lacking attention to detail. OPREP 14-111, rendered by the company commander, provided a summary of incident involving the applicant failing to report to an 1800 recall formation and possible AWOL on 1 September 2014. FG Article 15, dated 10 September 2014, for disobeying an order on 5 July 2014, signing a false official document on 5 July 2014, violating a lawful general regulation on 31 August 2014, and absenting herself from her unit on 1 September 2014, and remained absent until 3 September 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $765, 45 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 September 2014, cleared the applicant for any action deemed appropriate by her command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 3 days (AWOL: 1 September 2014 to 3 September 2014) / Applicant returned to her unit j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant's documentary evidence, her health record, dated 16 July 2014, shows behavioral health issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 12 September 2016; two memoranda for record, dated 14 August 2014, and 18 August 2014; applicant's sworn statement, dated 3 September 2014; AWOL report, undated, rendered by the unit commander; training schedule from 1 September 2014 to 7 September 2014; counseling statement, dated 17 June 2014; health records, dated 16 July 2014; university school of nursing letter and option reply letter, dated 12 October 2015 and 16 October 2015, respectively; and university unofficial transcript, dated 19 July 2016. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, she is current on course to becoming a nurse. Her documentary evidence shows she is enroll provided 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. 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, and to change the narrative reason for her discharge, including its corresponding codes. The applicant's available record of service, and 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. By the incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of her service. The applicant provided insufficient or no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence that her service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant's contentions that her discharge was inequitable because her Constitutional rights were violated, and her experience with manifested stress, isolation, sleep deprivation, and unprofessional and inhumane treatments by NCOs, and her subsequent filing of complaints due to toxic command climate and being targeted as a female trainee by NCOs, were carefully reviewed. 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 and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The evidence of record further shows before initiating discharge proceedings, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about her deficiencies which could lead to separation. The command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory Soldier. The evidence contained in the service record establishes the applicant was afforded reasonable opportunities to overcome noted deficiencies. As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service. The rationale the applicant provided as the basis for what she believes was an unfair discharge is not supportable by the evidence contained in the record and can only be viewed as speculative in nature. The applicant's contentions regarding her self-referral to a behavioral health appointment for issues resulting from manifested stress and experiencing inhumane treatment, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed, 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. In consideration of the applicant's post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that her accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of her characterization of service. The applicant expressed a desire to rejoin the Military Service as a nurse to care for Soldiers. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant requests to change the reason for her separation; however, the narrative reason for his separation is governed by specific directives and as approved by the separation authority. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is JKA. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 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 8 November 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 AR20160016620 4