1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 June 2017 b. Date Received: 19 June 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, was a victim of an ongoing severe physical and mental spousal abuse. The acts of misconduct were committed between September 2011 and April 2012, at the time of the marriage being at its worst-the applicant was under large amounts of stress resulting from the divorce and child- custody proceedings. The applicant was arrested upon deciding to finally defend oneself against a violent attack. All the charges against the applicant were dropped. The applicant would like those facts taken into consideration when reviewing the case. There was no excuse for the misconduct and accepts full responsibility for the events and the effects of the personal life had on the applicant's performance as a Soldier. However the applicant believes that the circumstances of the personal life hugely impacted the decision-making abilities-the minor infractions were direct results of the stress caused by the severe physical and mental spousal abuse the applicant sustained. The mental status evaluation on 30 July 2012, reflected that the applicant had positive signs for PTSD, but never received a comprehensive PTSD evaluation. There is no mention of this medical condition in the separation documents. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate diagnoses of Partner Relational Problem and PTSD. VA records indicate diagnoses of PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder. The applicant is 30% service-connected for PTSD through the VA. In summary, the applicant had a BH diagnosis that is partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 February 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. severe family matters and in-service and post-service diagnoses of PTSD) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. (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: 22 April 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 January 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant had continuous behavior of misconduct, such as missing various appointments and disobeying her leadership. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) Honorable by unit commander, and Honorable by the battalion and brigade commanders (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 January 2013 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 19 March 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) by the GCMCA 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 July 2010 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 119 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 2 years, 8 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTSM; AS g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Memorandum, dated 2 June 2011, rendered by a clinical psychologist, indicates the Family Advocacy Case Review Committee had accepted a substantiated physical spouse abuse case with the applicant as the victim. The CRD recommended the applicant be command-directed for scheduling and monitoring treatment. Civilian County Probation Department Conditions of Release, dated 15 September 2011, provide a list of conditions for the release of the applicant named as a defendant from custody under the provisions of a pre-trial release program, and that she would be appearing before a court to answer the charges against her upon notification (information on specific charge(s) NIF). CG Article 15, dated 1 February 2012, for disobeying an NCO on 12 December 2011, and being derelict in the performance of her duties on 12 December 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended), 7 days of extra duty, and an oral reprimand. CG Article 15, dated 31 May 2012, for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on four separate occasions on 5 April 2012, 15 November 2011, 21 February 2012, and 7 February 2012. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, 14 days of extra duty and restriction, and an oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 July 2012, reflects no diagnosis, but a positive screening for PTSD, and she was cleared for administrative separation. Counseling statements for being recommended for an involuntary separation; going beyond the allowed mileage distance for pass; failing to properly notify and keeping in contact with her chain of command; missing scheduled appointments on numerous occasions; disobeying an NCO; and disrespecting an NCO. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None reflected on DD Form 214 j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: No specific diagnosis. Report of Medical History, dated 9 August 2012, indicates the applicant noted speaking with behavioral health counselor for family issues. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 15 June 2017, with self-authored statement; memorandum, dated 2 June 2011 (CRC); Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 30 July 2012; four memoranda (recommendations for discharge proceedings); separation authority's (GCMCA's) decision memorandum; and a character reference statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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 14-12b 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. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant's available record of service, and 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. By the pattern of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of her service that ultimately caused her discharge from the Army. 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's contentions about being a victim of physical and mental abuse spousal abuse, that she was arrested when she decided to finally defend herself against a violent attack, that all the charges against her were dropped, and that there was no mention of the medical condition in her separation documents, were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the merit of the applicant's contentions and the quality of her service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further sufficient evidence in support of her request for relief. The applicant's contentions regarding her behavioral health issues which involved being a victim of physical and mental abuse, and her subsequent positive screening for PTSD, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence provides no behavioral health issues diagnoses. Based on the available record, if the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to her misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., documentary evidence in support of all her contentions as they relate to her charges being dropped, and behavioral health issues diagnoses), for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. The applicant claims the offenses that caused her discharge were minor infractions in nature. However, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance and character. However, the person providing the character reference/supporting statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. The applicant requests to change the reason for her separation; however, the narrative reason for her separation is governed by specific directives and as approved by the separation authority. The narrative reason specified by AR 635-5-1 for a discharge under Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b is "Pattern of Misconduct," and the separation code is JKA. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. Based on the available record, 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 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 8 February 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. severe family matters and in-service and post-service diagnoses of PTSD) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), and the separation code to JKN. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / 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 AR20170009919 1