1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 October 2016 b. Date Received: 17 October 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 honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she is now the age 28 and she desires to grow in her career. She is applying to be a correctional officer and or a police officer and she would love to serve with the law enforcement. She has matured and she is still undergoing school. She states, she deserves a great, and well-mature career. During her time in the Army, she had been dealing with many issues at her duty station. She was struck by a drunk driver and since that time she has not been the same anymore. She received counseling and help and now she is doing much better. Since her discharge, she has not been in any trouble with the law. She was attending school, but has taken a break, due to full-time employment. She has had two jobs since her discharge, but presently, she is not employed and is in the process of working from home and focusing on her studies. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 January 2018, 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 10 July 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 9 April 2009 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: She was AWOL on divers occasions, from on or about 23 October 2008 to on or about 12 November 2008; from on or about 17 November 2008 to on or about 10 March 2009; from on or about 25 March 2009 to on or about 26 March 2009; from on or about 3 April 2009 to on or about 6 April 2009. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 9 April 2009 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 29 April 2009, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of her rights. On 26 May 2009, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant's discharge with characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. On 26 June 2009, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 June 2009 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 February 2007 / 4 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 42A10, Human Resources / 1 year, 8 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Twelve Personnel Action forms, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: From "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "Absent Without Leave (AWOL)," effective 23 October 2008; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 12 November 2008; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 17 November 2008; From "AWOL" to "Dropped From Rolls (DFR)," effective 17 December 2008; From "DFR" to "PDY," effective 10 March 2009; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 25 March 2009; From "AWOL" to "Confined," effective 26 March 2009; From "Confined" to "PDY," effective 27 March 2009; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 3 April 2009; From "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 9 June 2009; From "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 11 June 2009; and, From "AWOL" to "DFR," effective 11 June 2009. Military Police Report, dated 18 November 2008, reflects the applicant was listed as AWOL by her unit on 17 November 2008, at 1300 hours and dropped from the rolls on 17 December 2008, at 0700 hours. On 10 March 2009, at 1310 hours, the applicant surrendered to Fort Drum Police and was later turned over to her unit on a DD form 2708. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 March 2009, 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 Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 16 April 2009, reflects the applicant was charged with six specifications of violation of Article 86, UCMJ: AWOL, 23 October 2008 to 12 November 2008; Guilty, inconsistent with the plea; AWOL, 17 November 2008 to 10 March 2009; Guilty, consistent with the plea; AWOL, 25 March 2009 to 26 March 2009; Not Guilty, consistent with the plea; AWOL, 3 April 2009 to 6 April 2009; Guilty, inconsistent with the plea; Failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty, 12 October 2008; Guilty, inconsistent with the plea; and, Failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty, 23 March 2009; Guilty, inconsistent with the plea. The sentenced adjudged: Reduction to E-1 and confinement for 7 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 245 days / AWOL, 1 July 2008 - 12 November 2008; 17 November 2008 - 10 March 2009 / apprehended; Confined, 25 March 2009 - 26 March 2009 / returned to unit; and, AWOL, 3 April 2009 - 6 April 2009 / Surrendered to Military Authorities j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, she has gained employment and is currently pursuing working from home and focusing on her studies. 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 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 service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, reentry code as 4. The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge by reason of misconduct (serious offense). Soldiers processed for misconduct (serious offense) will be assigned an SPD Code of JKQ and an RE Code of 3. The applicant contends that she was dealing with issues as a result of a car accident 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. Further, 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 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 that she was immature at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization 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 The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge will allow her to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Notwithstanding the administrative error, 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 that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 10 January 2018, 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 AR20160018906 1