1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 13 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 general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she has been diagnosed with PTSD, but is unable to receive treatment because of the characterization of service of her discharge. During her service on Active Duty, she was stationed in Germany, where she deployed to South West Asia. Over the service she deployed several times to Iraq and to Israel. She excelled during her service and was selected for promotion to sergeant first class and was accepted to attend Officer training school. In July 2008, after her 15 month deployment, her unit was given the weekend off, but she had no family in the immediate area, and her car and cell phone was in another state. Since, she had not seen her family in 15 months, she decided to travel home along with six fellow Soldiers. They were to leave on Friday afternoon and return on Sunday, in time for first formation on Monday morning. All the Soldiers found tickets on various airlines, and all found a way to the airport and all six returned on Sunday as intended, however, she did not. The weather conditions on the east coast delayed her flight out to Charlotte, and canceled her connecting flight between New York airports. She arrived five hours late, after the formation on Monday morning. Her commander decided to take action, however her immediate supervisor disagreed and commented that "taking action would be unfair, since she was not the only Soldier to [sic] the Fort Drum area". After redeploying, being with family and friends was all she wanted, but Soldiers with families outside of Fort Drum area were told to wait another two weeks to see their families. She understands that this did not justify her actions. She had ongoing issues at home, a failing marriage and a young daughter at home and she knows her actions were for selfish reasons, instead of obeying the good order and discipline that her unit expected of her. Her commander insisted on knowing the names of all the Soldiers who left the base that weekend; and, while her supervisor insisted that she give the commander all the names of the Soldiers in the hopes that he would not be too hard with her punishment. She refused and was then counseled for disobeying a direct order and lying after the fact. Months went by and her refusal to give-up the names moved towards the possibility of a court-martial. Under oath, she knew she would then have no choice but to surrender the six names of her fellow Soldiers, which included leadership and subordinates. All the individuals were very personal to her and more important than saving herself. She had deployed three times with a few of the Soldiers, and deployed recently with the others. She struggled with the pressure of what to do and the consequences of serious punishment of a court-martial. She requested a separation In lieu of court-martial and received an other than honorable conditions discharge. Her first enlistment was an honorable, but her second one was what led to the denial of health care for her PTSD. She is unemployed and does not have a secondary source of health care to seek treatment for her PTSD. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant did not have mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions for the offenses which led to her separation from the Army. A limited review through the JLV (Joint Legacy Viewer) of the applicant's Veterans Affairs records notes 44 problems (12 VA-entered) including insomnia, asthma, low back pain, idiopathic scoliosis, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, ruptured ovarian cyst, and others. The Veterans Affairs has service-connected the applicant at 50 percent overall (prostate gland condition (presumably for the applicant's voiding dysfunction, not her 'prostate') at 40 percent; arthritis degenerative at 10 percent; scars at 0 percent). In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 27 July 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include her combat service, and the circumstances surrounding her discharge (i.e. misconduct warrants GD, not UOTH), 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 reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. This action entails restoration of grade to E-6/SSG. (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: 27 February 2009 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 20 January 2009, the applicant was charged with: Charge I, Violating Article 92, UCMJ, for being failing to obey a lawful order, by traveling more than 100 miles while on pass (between 21 to 22 July 2008); Charge II, Violating Article 86, UCMJ, for absenting herself , without authority from her place of duty (from 23 to 24 July 2008); Charge III, two specifications of violating Article 107, UCMJ, for making a false official statement (between 23 July and 20 December 2008); and, for submitting a false written statement (25 July 2008). (2) Legal Consultation Date: 6 February 2009 (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: 17 February 2009 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 21 February 2008 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 35 / Masters Degree / 120 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-6 / 92A30, Logistics Automation Specialist / 12 years, 11 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 6 March 1996 - 7 March 1999 / HD RA, 8 March 1999 - 10 January 2001 / HD RA, 11 January 2001 - 5 December 2005 / HD RA, 6 December 2005 - 20 February 2008 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Israel, Saudi Arabia, SWA / Iraq (4 May 2007 - 31 July 2008) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM-3, AAM-2, VUA, AGCM-4, NDSM, AFEM-2, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-3 g. Performance Ratings: 1 July 2007 - 30 June 2008, Among The Best h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Unexecuted FG Article 15, dated 3 December 2008, for failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty on 25 July2008 Commander's Inquiry, dated 7 January 2009, reflects the applicant violated the 100 mile travel restriction; was AWOL on 23 July 2008; and, lied about her whereabouts on numerous occasions. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: The applicant provided a copy of VA Form 21-0960P-3, dated 8 December 2015, and an allied letter, which reflects she was diagnosed with PTSD, chronic, severe (AXIS I). 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 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 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. 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 record of service, 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. 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. Her record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general discharge at this late date. The applicant contends that he had good service which included a combat tour and several deployments. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for her accomplishments. The applicant contends the VA has granted her a service connected disability for PTSD. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The applicant's service record is void of a mental status evaluation. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that although she knew the difference between what was right and wrong. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow medical treatment through the VA. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include medical benefits do 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 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. 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 July 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include her combat service, and the circumstances surrounding her discharge (i.e. misconduct warrants GD, not UOTH), 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 reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. This action entails restoration of grade to E-6/SSG. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: 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-6/SSG 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 AR20160019759 1