1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 November 2016 b. Date Received: 17 January 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she was never notified of the specific reasons that warranted a general characterization of service. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review in the service record, AHLTA, and JLV, the applicant was diagnosed with OBH. However, due to the nature of the behavioral health conditions, OBH does not mitigate the misconduct. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 May 2018, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was improper. The record indicates the applicant was not notified of any specific factors which would warrant a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. Therefore, the characterization not being proper and equitable, the Board granted relief in the form of an upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Condition, Not a Disability / AR 635- 200, Chapter 5-17 / JFV / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 October 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 August 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 8 May 2012, she was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, which prevented the applicant from performing her duties in the U.S. Army. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 August 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 September 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 5 October 2012 / 3 years, 43 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 91J10, Quartermaster and Chemical Equipment Repair / 1 year, 3 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Italy / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 7 May 2012, for failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (23 April 2012); and, failing to obey a lawful order (23 April 2012). The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 14 days; and, an oral reprimand. CG Article 15, dated 11 June 2012, for breaking restriction (12 May 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; and, extra duty for 10 days. Memorandum for Record, dated 14 August 2012, wherein the applicant's company commander stated his justification for his recommendation for the applicant to receive a general characterization of service. The specific reasons were: On 7 May 2012, she received a company grade Article 15, because she failed to go to her appointed place of duty, 0630 PT formation and accountability, and she failed to obey a lawful order by her 1SG instructing her to be at the 0630 PT formation; On 12 June 2012, she received another company grade Article 15, because she failed to follow the restrictions imposed by her first Article 15; On 23 April 2012, she received counseling because she violated AR 670-1 (Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia) after she was seen by her 1SG wearing a tongue ring during PT hours; and, On 23 April 2012, she received counseling because she failed to be at her appointed place of duty, 0930 work call. Several Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 8 May 2012, 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. The applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-17 specifically provides that a Soldier may be separated for other physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty and requires that the diagnosis be so severe that the Soldier's ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired. AR 635-200, paragraph 5-1, states that a Soldier being separated under this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry-level status. A general (under honorable conditions) discharge is normally inappropriate for individuals separated under the provisions of Chapter 5-17 unless properly notified of the specific factors in the service that warrant such characterization. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The applicant contends that she was never notified of the specific reasons for not receiving an honorable discharge. After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, the Board determined the applicant's characterization was improper. The applicant's commander justified his reasons for the recommendation of a general characterization of service on 14 August 2012, as reflected in a memorandum for record. There is no evidence in the record that the applicant or her counsel were ever served with that memorandum prior to the date she was separated. Had the command followed the regulation from the start, there would be no ambiguity about what happened or about the date the applicant had been duly notified of the factors purportedly justifying a General (Under Honorable Conditions). Further, the regulation provides that the Soldier should be notified of the specific factors warranting a General (Under Honorable Conditions) using the notification procedure. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the applicant was not properly notified of the specific factors that motivated the command to discharge her with a General (Under Honorable Conditions). This improper notification violates AR 635-200, paragraph 1-5. The discharge was not consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was not within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was not provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 May 2018, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was improper. The record indicates the applicant was not notified of any specific factors which would warrant a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. Therefore, the characterization not being proper and equitable, the Board granted relief in the form of an upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20170005518 1