1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 May 2017 b. Date Received: 19 May 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, her discharge was inequitable because they never she violated GO #1 considered her evidence or allow her to defend herself before it got to JAG. Her sergeant in command started making advances towards her. She was sexually harassed by her sergeant continuously. She was mistreated by her sergeant by ordering her do tasks not related to her MOS. Since being discharged she has been unable to maintain a job. Her discharge prevents her from attending school to obtain a degree. She is extremely depressed and suffers from anxiety. 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 PTSD and Anxiety Disorder. However, due to the nature of the misconduct, neither condition mitigates the offense of violating a general order by having a member of the opposite sex in her living quarters or making false official statements. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 14 September 2018, and by a 4-1 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 / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 May 2010 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 April 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for her discharge; she violated CJTF-82, General Order Number 1 twice by having a member of the opposite sex in her living quarters behind closed doors (14 March 2010 and 15 March 2010); she made a false official statement to 2LT S.B., stating that "I am the only person in my room" or words to that effect (15 March 2010). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 April 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 22 April 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 August 2008 / 3 years, 24 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 years / HS Graduate / 87 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 1 year, 8 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan, 20 November 2009 to 24 April 2010 f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Positive urinalysis test coded IU (Inspection Unit), dated 12 August 2009, for THC. FG Article 15, dated 30 September 2009, for wrongful use of marijuana between (12 July 2009 and 12 August 2009); reduction to PV2 / E-2, forfeiture of $100 pay for two months and extra duty for 30 days. FG Article 15, dated 25 March 2010, for violating a lawful general order, by wrongfully having a member of the opposite sex in her living quarters behind a closed door x2 (14 March 2010 and 15 March 2010); with intent to deceive, make to 2LT S.B., an official statement, "I am the only person in the room" or words to that effect, which statement was totally false (15 March 2010); with intent to deceive, make to 2LT S.B., an official statement, "My door was not locked" or words to that effect, which statement totally false (15 March 2010); and she had an inappropriate relationship with Senior Airman C., a person who is not her husband, by being in the same living quarters while both of their shirts were off, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces (15 March 2010); reduction to PVT / E-l, forfeiture of $723 pay for two months; extra duty for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 15 April 2010, relates the applicant was mentally responsible for her behavior, could distinguish right from wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in any administrative proceedings. She was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by command. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical Examination, dated 18 March 2010, revealed that the applicant was diagnosed with occupational problem and anxiety. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); self-authored statement (three pages); and two support statements. 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. 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, the issues and documents 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 misconduct (serious offense), 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, her discharge was inequitable because they never considered her evidence or allowed her to defend herself before it got to JAG. The record of evidence shows that the applicant consulted with legal counsel regarding the contemplated action to separate her for various acts of misconduct. The applicant opted not to submit any statements in her own behalf. The applicant further contends, her sergeant in command started making advances towards her and she was sexually harassed by her sergeant continuously. Although the applicant alleges that he was a victim of sexual harassment during her military service, there is no evidence in her military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention. Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge. The applicant also contends, she was mistreated by her sergeant by ordering her do tasks not related to her MOS. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she was mistreated by her sergeant. The applicant additionally contends, since being discharged she has been unable to maintain a job. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Furthermore, the applicant contends, her discharge prevents her from attending school to obtain a degree. 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. Lastly, the applicant contends, she is extremely depressed and suffers from anxiety. A Report of Medical Examination, revealed that the applicant was diagnosed with occupational problem and anxiety. However, the service record does not support the applicant's contention that she suffers from depression and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 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 14 September 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 AR20170008734 1