1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 August 2017 b. Date Received: 3 April 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she served honorably for three years as a Chemical Defense Specialist in an Air Defense unit. She re-classed into a Military Intelligence MOS and she was stationed in Germany. She scored the highest possible score on the Arabic Language Defense Language Proficiency Test in the Dialects of Modern Standard Arabic, Gulf Dialect, Levantine (Syrian) dialect and Egyptian dialect. She worked with Arab service members in the intelligence community in a facility that fell under the NSA. She witnessed violations that would have dire consequences on the national security of the United States. She made complaints to her chain of command, General D, and the INSCOM inspector general. She states, her chain of command reprised against her for making protected communications to avoid being held accountable for those violations. She went through a year of hell and her husband made complaints to the former U.S. President and to U.S. Senator M. Investigations were launched and they lasted two years. The investigations contained evidence that her chain of command had noticed that the applicant had conduct problems beginning in Fort Huachuca. She states, the interesting point is that she was never stationed in Fort Huachuca. The investigation report reflects that there were 29 pages included, but she only received 28 pages. She does not want to waste the Army's resources nor waste an additional two years to relaunch another investigation. All the responses to her complaints advised her to apply to have her discharge upgraded and now submits her application. She joined the U.S. Army with a Master's degree and she aspired to obtain a Ph.D. and to continue to serve the United States in a civilian capacity. An upgrade of her discharge will help her achieve that goal. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, the information available for review in the service record, AHLTA, and JLV, were reviewed. SMs military medical records revealed diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder, Alcohol Intoxication and Bipolar Disorder (Oct 2013). In summary, there was insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant had a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the offenses which led to her separation from the Army. There is evidence that SM more likely than not was experiencing symptoms of Bipolar Disorder during her period of misconduct to include SM exhibiting a lack of insight, paranoia, agitation/irritability, and impulsive/risky behaviors; however, her symptoms are atypical given their duration and late onset. Regarding her contention that she was directed to undergo 2 command directed mental health evaluations and that she was separated due to reprisal, these are unfounded and it appears that evaluations and hospitalizations were appropriately carried out. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 August 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-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 April 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 February 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: She assaulted a military police officer and resisted arrest; She failed to obey orders given to her from her superiors; and, She had been disrespectful to her superiors. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 11 March 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 March 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 12 April 2013 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 39 / Master's Degree / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 35P10, Cryptologic Linguist / 4 years, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 30 March 2010 - 11 April 2014 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Military Police Report, dated 4 October 2013, reflects the applicant was apprehended by the military police for: Simple Assault on a Military Police; failure to obey an Order or Regulation; disrespect to a superior officer/NCO/PO; and using provoking speech/gestures. 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 20 February 2014, reflects the applicant was cleared for any 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 Occupational Problem. German Clinic and Polyclinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy report, dated 10 September 2013, reflects the applicant was diagnosed with V.A PTSD ICD 10: F 43.1 and Arousal ICD 10: F R45.1. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; Letter to former President; Letter to US Senator; Response letter; Letter of investigation and completion; Cover sheet; Report of investigation; Honorable discharge certificate; and, DD Form 214. 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 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. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). 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. 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 applicant contends she was reprised against for making protected communication to avoid being held accountable for those violations which ultimately led to her discharge. However, 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 applicant contends that she had good service. 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 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow pursue her Ph.D. However, 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. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it is his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official 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 17 August 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 AR20170006606 1