1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 July 2017 b. Date Received: 24 July 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 and a narrative reason change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, while she was assigned to Fort Hood and Mosul, Iraq, she was a victim of hazing. She recalls her first day with the unit, where she was being smoked in the motor pool, in front of her entire company as her squad leader called her derogatory things, such as a slut and a whore. This was a result of returning to her barracks room after being released by a higher ranking lower enlisted, instead of her squad leader specifically. She states that incidents similar to this occurred almost daily. She had battle buddies that went to the CSM about how the applicant and other Soldiers were being treated, but either things got worse or nothing changed. She states, her treatment was so severe and psychologically damaging that she often contemplated suicide. She did not believe that there was anywhere she could safely report this treatment without reprisal. She attests that this treatment ultimately led to a breakdown in her morale and aided in the lapse in her judgement that ultimately resulted in her discharge. Despite this treatment, the act of adultery, which led to her discharge was the only blemish on her military record. Since her discharge, she has battled depression and anxiety and receives treatment from the VA. Currently, she is rated 50 percent service-connected disabled for a trauma and stressor related disorder through the VA. It has taken her awhile to realize and come to terms with how being treated inhumanely truly affected her psyche. She hopes to have her discharge upgraded in order to move on from this low point in her life, instead of having it as a constant reminder. 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 behavioral health conditions. However, her behavioral health condition does not mitigate the offense of adultery. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 8 June 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 April 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 28 March 2011, the applicant's commander, received a letter from now SPC T's wife, Mrs. T, requesting an investigation into the applicant's relationship with SPC T. Her letter included 108 pages of Facebook correspondence between the applicant and SPC T. In the Facebook messages, each of them profess their love for each other. Some of the applicant's discussions had sexual undertones. During the 15-6 investigation into the matter, SPC T admitted to having sexual intercourse with the applicant during the deployment. The applicant knew SPC T was married and has two children. PFC S, the applicant's former roommate, caught the applicant and SPC T having sexual intercourse in the applicant's Containerized Housing Unit (CHU) on the night of 30 January 2011. After this event, the applicant and PFC S began getting into numerous arguments, which ultimately resulted in the applicant's reassignment to another CHU. That underscores how the applicant's behavior was prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting. The applicant's adulterous affair is in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 29 April 2011, the applicant waived her rights to consult with a JAG officer. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 30 April 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 July 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / Associate's Degree / 120 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 2 years, 10 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (14 September 2010 - 15 May 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Executive Summary of Commander's Inquiry of Improper Relationship, dated 11 April 2011, reflects, in part, SGT T and the applicant did engage in adulterous acts during this employment that meets the definition of adultery under Article 134, UCMJ. SGT T and the applicant wrongfully had sexual intercourse based on the fact that they are married. It was proven that at the time both Soldiers were married because it took place during the deployment and both Soldiers were married before the deployment. The circumstances around PFC S knowing an NCO was having sex with a lower enlisted Soldier by walking in on them having sex and eventually leading to the applicant having to move out because of confrontation between the two Soldiers proves that the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. FG Article 15, dated 16 April 2011, for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a married man not her husband (12 April 2011). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $734 pay per month for two months; and, extra duty for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 April 2011, 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. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application. 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 the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ"." 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 contends that she has been diagnosed post-service with a trauma and stressor related disorder. However, the service record contains no evidence of a 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 applicant contends that she was hazed and discriminated by members of her chain of command; however, she had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge. The applicant contends the event that caused her discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends that she had good service which included a combat tour. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of her service prior to the incident that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for her accomplishments. 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 12 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 AR20170011133 6