1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 June 2017 b. Date Received: 23 June 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to her narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that untreated long-term mental health illnesses are believed to have significantly contributed to her actions which resulted in two Article 15s during her 8 year career. She contends that both Article 15s received were due to poor decisions made involving adultery. Extreme traumas from childhood abuse and neglect caused PTSD, for which treatment was not sought until January 2015. She was a young officer that had no sense of self-worth or dignity and it resulted in her first Article 15. This Article15 was initially not issued, rather, suspended and dismissed. Later, in 2015, MG V. reviewed the paperwork from 2 years prior and administered the Article15, overriding BG S.'s previous punishment and delivering his own. She contends she was diagnosed with combat related PTSD in 2015, after a traumatic experience (mortar attack- approximately 25M distance) in Afghanistan on 17 November 2013. She returned home, on a whim got married again, pregnant, miscarried, developed severe depression, and got pregnant again. Her second affair happened shortly after. She was then repeatedly Sexually Assaulted and harassed for a prolonged period of time, while pregnant, by her (now) ex-husband J. N. from 2014-2015; the Army did not pursue charges. It was all a horrible experience for which she finally sought treatment in 2015-2016. She received diagnoses from Dr. J.R. (Ph.D. LPC-MHSP) and subsequently began receiving treatment in 2015 for the following mental health issues: 1) Military moral injury 2) Deployment PTSD 3) Sexual Assault PTSD 4) Anxiety 5) Severe Depression She has been actively participating in mental health treatment. Her discharge reflects actions which were the direct result of untreated mental health issues. She understands her wrongdoings better now than ever. The biggest mistake she made was not seeking mental health treatment sooner. If she had, she would still be in the Army, serving honorably. The discharge code received has additionally crippled her ability to find meaningful employment. She has turned her life around the best she can at this point. All other aspects of her career performance were spectacular. She proudly served as a deployed Platoon Leader, Brigade Adjutant, and the Battalion S1. She achieved Airborne, Air Assault, and Pathfinder Badges. Her career was outstanding, aside from her unresolved mental health issues which resulted in two Article 15s directly related to her personal indiscretions. 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 due to deployment and sexual assault, anxiety and depression. However, due to the nature of the misconduct, PTSD does not mitigate the offenses of committing adultery or making a false official statement. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 September 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b and 4-24a (1) / BNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 12 December 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 April 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was required to show cause for retention on Active Duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraphs 4-2b(4), 4-2b(5), 4-2b(8), and 4-2c(1), for the intentional omission or misstatement of facts in an official statement for the purpose of misrepresentation, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, conduct unbecoming an officer, and for receiving punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. This action was based upon the following specific reasons for elimination; Between 1 February 2013 and 13 April 2013, she wrongfully and dishonorably engaged in a prohibited and adulterous relationship with a subordinate noncommissioned officer (NCO) and on 17 April 2013, she provided a false official statement to an investigating officer concerning her relationship with the NCO; and On 17 May 2013, she received punishment under Article 15, UCMJ for those offenses (3) Legal Consultation Date: On 23 March 2016, the applicant submitted a request for resignation in lieu of elimination (RILOE) conditioned on receiving a characterization no less favorable than general (under honorable conditions). (4) GCMCA Recommendation Date: 29 March 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) (5) DA Ad Hoc Review Board: The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board accepted the applicant's request for resignation in lieu of elimination in accordance with AR 600- 8-24, Chapter 4 with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 November 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Appointment: 9 September 2015 / Indefinite b. Age at Appointment / Education: 22 / BS c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-2 / 42B5Q5P, HR Officer / 8 years, 1 day d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 12 December 2008 to 4 May 2009 / NA ADT, 5 May 2009 to 11 September 2009 / HD ARNG, 12 September 2009 to 9 August 2012 / HD Appointed 2LT / USAR (10 August 2009 to 6 September 2012) / NA RA, 7 September 2012 to 8 September 2015 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (1 July 2013 to 27 March 2014) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, MUC, ACM-CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: 7 September 2012 to 7 December 2013 / Best Qualified 8 December 2013 to 7 December 2014 / Highly Qualified 7 December 2014 to 6 December 2015 / Not Qualified 8 December 2015 to 22 April 2016 / Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: AR 15-6 Investigation, dated 30 April 2013, reflects the investigating officer found that the applicant and SSG C.R.B., violated Article 134, UCMJ, adultery, by engaging in a sexual relationship while married. GO Article 15, dated 13 May 2013, for between 1 February 2013 and 1 April 2013, she violated a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4-14, Army Regulation 600-20, dated 18 March 2008, by engaging in a relationship with SSG C.R.B., that created a clearly predicable adverse impact on discipline, authority, and morale; she wrongfully and dishonorably engaged in unlawful conduct with SSG C.R.B., an enlisted Soldier, by engaging in an intimate relationship, which conduct was to the disgrace of the armed forces and unbecoming of an officer and a gentlewoman; and on 17 April 2013, she wrongfully and dishonorably made a false official statement to an investigating officer when she denied her intimate relationship with SSG C.R.B., which conduct was to the disgrace of the armed forces and unbecoming of an officer and a gentlewoman. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $1,809 pay per month for two months, arrest in quarters for 30 days (suspended) for 180 days, and written reprimand. On 8 April 2015, MG G.J.V., determined that the punishment of forfeiture of $1,809 pay per month for two months was improperly imposed, set aside the forfeiture, and directed that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service repay the applicant in the amount of $3,618. The applicant was found guilty of all specifications for wrongfully engaging in a prohibited intimate relationship with a subordinate enlisted Soldier and providing false information to the investigating officer. AR 15-6 Investigation, dated 6 May 2015, reflects the investigating officer found by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant and Chief Warrant Officer 3 R.C. violated Article 133, UCMJ, conduct unbecoming, by having an inappropriate relationship while married; Article 134, UCMJ, adultery, by engaging in a sexual relationship while married. GO Article 15, dated 18 June 2015, for between 1 September 2014 and on or about 28 April 2015, wrongfully and dishonorably engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with Chief Warrant Officer 3 R.C., a married man not her husband, which conduct was to the disgrace of the armed forces and unbecoming of an officer and a gentlewoman and between on or about 1 September 2014 and 28 April 2015, she wrongfully had sexual intercourse with Chief Warrant Officer 3 R.C., a married man not her husband, such conduct being to the prejudice of the good order and discipline of the armed forces. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $2,339 pay per month for two months (suspended). Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 June 2015, shows that the applicant was screened for PTSD and mTBI IAW OTSG/MEDCOM policy Memo 10-040. Results were negative. The applicant declined services at that time. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for action to separate under AR 600-8-24 consideration per her command. The applicant denied thoughts of hurting herself or others. The applicant met medical retention per R 40-501 and was therefore cleared for chapter action. The applicant agreed to non- confidential evaluation for purposes of chapter clearance and consented to release of report to command. Counseling statement for act of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application; separation documents; medical progress notes that make reference to the applicant being treated for PTSD; letters of support; report of medical examination (DD Form 2808); report of medical history (DD Form 2807-1); background medical information; report of medical assessment (DD Form 2697); and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. 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 "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign commissioned officers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct; and, 4-24a (1), resignation in lieu of elimination. 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 and a change to her narrative reason for discharge. 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that her service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained. Further, the applicant's record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b and 4-24a (1), AR 600-8-24 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is "BNC." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant seeks relief contending that both Article 15s received were due to poor decisions were the result extreme traumas from childhood abuse and neglect caused PTSD, for which treatment was not sought until January 2015. She was a young officer that had no sense of self-worth or dignity and it resulted in her first Article 15. She contends she was diagnosed with combat related PTSD in 2015, after a traumatic experience (mortar attack- approximately 25M distance) in Afghanistan on 17 November 2013. She returned home, on a whim got married again, pregnant, miscarried, developed severe depression, and got pregnant again. Her second affair happened shortly after. She was then repeatedly Sexually Assaulted and harassed for a prolonged period of time, while pregnant, by her (now) ex-husband J. N. from 2014-2015; the Army did not pursue charges. It was all a horrible experience for which she finally sought treatment in 2015-2016. She received diagnoses from Dr. J.R. (Ph.D. LPC-MHSP) and subsequently began receiving treatment in 2015 for the following mental health issues: military moral injury; deployment PTSD; Sexual Assault PTSD; Anxiety; and Severe Depression. She has been actively participating in mental health treatment. Her discharge reflects actions which were the direct result of untreated mental health issues. She understands her wrongdoings better now than ever. The biggest mistake she made was not seeking mental health treatment sooner. If she had, she would still be in the Army, serving honorably. The discharge code received has additionally crippled her ability to find meaningful employment. She has turned her life around the best she can at this point. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The independent documents submitted by the applicant showing she was diagnosed with PTSD were also noted; however, the documents do not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of her discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during her discharge processing that would have warranted her separation processing through medical channels. The applicant contends the discharge code she received has crippled her ability to find meaningful employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant also contends all other aspects of her career performance were spectacular. She proudly served as a deployed Platoon Leader, Brigade Adjutant, and the Battalion S1. She achieved Airborne, Air Assault, and Pathfinder Badges. Her career was outstanding, aside from her unresolved mental health issues which resulted in two Article 15s directly related to her personal indiscretions. The applicant's in-service accomplishments were noted and the applicant is too commended on her accomplishments. 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 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 7 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 AR20170009810 1