1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 1 August 2017 b. Date Received: 4 August 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant dedicated life to fight for the country at 18 years old and was shipped far from home. The applicant states the unit lacked leadership and moral support. The applicant now suffers from PTSD, financial issues, anxiety, lack of focus and memory loss. The applicant was denied education benefits and believes the applicant deserves an education for giving up life and leaving family to fight for the country. Since discharge, the applicant has failed at maintaining a job and has been unsuccessful obtaining over six jobs in a year. The applicant has a hard time mentally accepting risking life for an organization that caused so much stress at a young age. The applicant has issues completing things, feelings of betrayal and trauma have caused the applicant to keep people away. The applicant had a hard time adjusting to the Army after realizing everyone was for themselves without a mature noncommissioned officer to lead them. The applicant was humiliated and made a fool of and then discharged for something undeserving. The applicant states, no one cared to understand the reasons for these actions. The applicant grew up in a hostile environment, where the mother was on cocaine and father was never around. They were poor, no transportation and could not afford to participate in academic activities. Colonel B was the applicant's hero and wanted to join the service and make a better life. The applicant was determined and would succeed until arriving at the first duly station and realized the unit was full of negative spirit. The applicant drowned in the daily negativity and believes the experience could have been better than what was received in the unit. The applicant only wants a chance of having a proper education and help from the country by receiving an upgrade. The applicant tried to make it without having to go through this, but is unable to stay on a job because mentally the applicant is not adjusting to civilian life. The applicant thanks the Board and asks for mercy in its consideration of this honest request. The applicant further details contentions in a self-authored statement. 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 Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood, Dysthymic Disorder, Alcohol Abuse, and Personality Disorder. VA records indicate the applicant is 50% service-connected for Chronic Adjustment Disorder. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with Major Depressive Disorder and Cannabis Dependence. There is no documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD in the applicant's records. In summary, although the applicant had a BH diagnosis, it is not migrating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 March 2019, 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 20 August 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 1 June 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 22 June 2015, she was disrespectful towards 1LT W; On 30 October 2015; she was derelict in the performance of her duties by failing to lock the outer doors to the Arms Room; On 5 February 2016, she damaged the personal property of PVT W and struck him on the face; and, On multiple occasions, she failed to be at her appointed place of duty. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 3 June 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 June 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 May 2013 / 3 years, 21 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 92 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist / 3 years, 3 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 16, dated 10 December 2015, for: Derelict in the performance of her duties, in that she negligently failed to lock the outer door to the Arms Room, as it was her duty to do so (30 October 2015); Behaved herself with disrespect toward 1LT W, her superior commissioned officer, then known by her to be her superior commissioned officer, by saying to him "Whatever!," or words to that effect (25 June 2015); and, Without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty on six separate occasions between 3 January 2015 and 3 November 2015. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended); forfeiture of $633 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty for 14 days; and, restriction for 7 days. Law Enforcement Report, dated 9 March 2016, reflects that probable cause existed that the applicant violated Article 90, UCMJ (Damaging Personal Property) and Article 128, UCMJ (Assault Consummated by a Battery). Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 25 April 2016, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment imposed on 16 December 2015, was vacated because the applicant: She, did, on or about 5 February 2016, willfully and wrongfully damage personal property by causing water damage, of a value of less than $500.00, the property of Q W. This is in violation of Article 109, UCMJ; She, did, on or about 5 February 2016, unlawfully strike PVT W on the face with her hand. This is in violation of Article 128, UCMJ; and, She, did, on or about 5 February 2016, unlawfully enter the dwelling house of PVT W, such conduct being prejudicial to the good order and discipline in the armed forces. This is in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. FG Article 15, dated 2 May 2016, for willfully and wrongfully damaging personal property by causing water damage, of a value of less than $500, the property of PVT W (5 February 2016); and, for unlawfully striking PVT W, on the face with her hand (5 February 2016). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; and, extra duty for 45 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; character statement. 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 14-12b 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. 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 he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends she is suffering from PTSD. 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 applicant contends she was humiliated and made a fool of and then discharged for something she did not deserve. 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 his overall service record. The applicant contends that she very young and immature at the time. The record confirms the applicant's youth at the time of enlistment and an apparent lack of maturity. The record also shows the applicant's discrediting entries were incidents of a minor nature. While the applicant's misconduct and poor duty performance were a clear departure from acceptable Army standards, it appears the offenses were partially mitigated by youth and immaturity. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. 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. The third party statement provided with the application spoke highly of the applicant's performance. However, the person providing the character reference statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, the statement did not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 22 March 2019, 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 AR20170012334 1