1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 February 2017 b. Date Received: 8 March 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she needs an upgrade to receive the proper benefits and treatment for mental health. She was not treated fairly with the type of discharge she has on file. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time, the applicant had no diagnoses in AHLTA and no VA SC disability percentage. VA outpatient encounter noted a lack of housing in 2014. During her Separation MSE on 11 August 2015, the provider diagnosed an untreatable (within the Army) Adjustment Disorder. The examiner also believed the applicant was likely to be a management problem for her command and recommended several actions designed to contain certain behaviors. At that time she had a Temporary S3 profile and had NOT met any medical retention decision point for psychiatric conditions. She did not have a mitigating psychiatric condition. At that time, she completed a health questionnaire on which she denied several common, telltale psychiatric symptoms. She does not have a mitigating condition. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 June 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 8 October 2005 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 14September 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for her discharge; she violated the drinking policy by wrongfully drinking underage (7 August 2005); she disrespected an NCO (8 August 2005); she failed to report to work after class (18-20 July 2005); she failed to report to STT (5 May 2005); she failed to report to PT on time x3 (2 May 2005, 8 April 2005 and 25 February 2005); and she failed to report to EUSA CQ (1 March 2005). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 September 2005 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 September 2005 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 September 2004 / 3 years, 2 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 years / HS Graduate / 83 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 42L10, Administrative Specialist / 1 year, 8 months, 6 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 9 February 2004 to 15 March 2004 / NA IADT 16 March 2004 to 1 July 2004 / NA USAR, 2 July 2004 to 26 September 2004 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 24 May 2005, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty x5 (5 May 2005, 2 May 2005, 8 April 2005, 1 March 2005 and 25 February 2005); and having received a lawful order from SSG .B.J.T., a noncommissioned officer, to sign in at CQ and then wait to be escorted by SSG .B.J.T., to physical fitness, or words to that effect, an order which it was her duty to obey, did willfully disobey the same( 2 March 2005); reduction to PVT / E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $642 pay (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days. On 29 July 2005, the suspension of punishment of reduction to PVT / E-1 and forfeiture of $642 pay for one month was vacated for the new offenses of without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty x3 (20 July 2005, 19 July 2005 and 18 July 2005). The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct; monthly performance counseling, command referred to ASAP and being recommend for separation from the service. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 August 2005, revealed the applicant had an Axis I diagnosis of an adjustment disorder not otherwise specified. This condition and the problems presented by the applicant are not amenable to hospitalization, treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, training, or reclassification to another type of duty within the military. It was unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate or develop the applicant into a satisfactory member of the military would be successful. The applicant has certain characterological traits that will recur if individual is retained in the service. She was cleared psychiatrically for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages). 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 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. 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service and the issues submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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 documented pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 seeks relief contending, she needs an upgrade to receive the proper benefits and treatment for mental health. The record shows that on 11 August 2005, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates she was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder not otherwise specified. 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 applicant further contends, she was not treated fairly with the type of discharge she has on file. 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 characterization 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 15 June 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 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 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 AR20170004186 4