1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 3 July 2017 b. Date Received: 6 July 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, accepts responsibility of the flaws and the mistakes that were made. The applicant was an outstanding Soldier once and had done amazing deeds. The applicant does not want to be identified as the horrible Soldier, but someone who was given another chance. An upgrade would allow the applicant to receive resources from the Veterans Hospital and the ability to strive to achieve a Medical Board status. The Medical Board would give the applicant the chance to attain Tri Care Benefits; which will assist with medical conditions. The desire is to be allowed to receive services from the Army Wounded Warrior (AW2) advocate. The applicant states an upgrade would allow the applicant to obtain MST Benefits, which the applicant desperately needs. The applicant states looking at this scar, is overwhelming and brings back countless memories of the horrific night. The desire is to be able to maintain a relationship one day, but believes one cannot do so until the applicant learns the proper coping mechanisms. The applicant understands life is not easy, but receiving the proper medical care is essential for healing. The applicant understands, now, how important resiliency would have helped throughout this difficult time in life. One can only take things one day at a time, one step at a time, and one moment at a time. The applicant further details the contentions in an allied 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, PTSD, TBI, and Major Depressive Disorder. The applicant is 100% service- connected for non-BH diagnoses from the VA. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, PTSD, MST, and Borderline Personality Disorder. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 5 December 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 December 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 28 July 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: From 10 June 2012 to 30 March 2014, she stole a total of $18,548.022 in basic allowance of quarters (BAQ); In addition to this misconduct, in November 2013, she made a false official statement to First Lieutenant A. C., by telling her that she had cancer; In November 2013, she made a false official statement to Staff Sergeant R. L., by telling her she had cervical or ovarian cancer; Between November 2013 and February 2014, she made a false official statement to First Sergeant L. H., by telling her she was receiving chemotherapy treatment because she had cancer; In January 2014, she made a false official statement to Staff Sergeant R. L., by telling her she had a chemotherapy appointment at Trinity Hospital that lasted late into the night and was too tired to come into work the following day, and; From November 2013 to February 2014, she, for the purpose of avoiding service as an enlisted person, feigned having cancer. (3) Recommended Characterization: 28 July 2014 (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 July 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 2 October 2014, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of her rights. On 17 October 2014, the administrative separation board convened and the applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant's discharge with characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). On 25 November 2014, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 2 September 2014, the Commanding General, reviewed the applicant's Medical Evaluation Board proceedings and the administrative separation packet and determined the applicant would be administratively separated. / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 January 2013 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / Associate's Degree / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 6 years, 11 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 7 January 2008 - 2 January 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Afghanistan (18 October 2010 - 27 September 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-2CS, ARCOM, AAM-3, GDCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: AR 15 Investigation Findings and Recommendations, dated 10 March 2014, found there was no evidence that the applicant had been diagnosed with, or received treatment for, cancer from November 2013 to the present. Therefore: Statements the applicant made to SSG R. L., 1SG L. H., and to 1LT A. C. that she was suffering from pain as a result of cancer or in order to be excused from her duty were found to be false. Statements the applicant made to SSG L., 1SG H, and 1LT C. that she was undergoing chemo therapy treatments and or associated appointments for cancer in order to be excused from her duty day were found to be false. Statements made to SSG L that SGT C was taking her to chemo therapy treatments were found to be false. There was no evidence that the applicant attended any appointments either at a Fort Gordon medical facility or a civilian medical facility from November 2013 to present, where she was diagnosed or treated for any form of cancer. FG Article 15, dated 6 May 2014, for dereliction in the performance of her duties in that she by culpable inefficiency failed to provide Staff Sergeant R.L. with the correct phone number to Trinity hospital, which was requested from her (3 February 2014); on or about November 2013, with intent to deceive, make to First Lieutenant A.C., a false official statement, to wit: that she had cancer; on or about November 2013, with intent to deceive, make a false official statement to Staff Sergeant R. L., to wit: she had cervical or ovarian cancer; on or about January 2014, with intent to deceive, make a false official statement to deceive, make to Staff Sergeant R.L., to wit: that she had a Chemotherapy appointment at Trinity Hospital that lasted late into the night and was too tired to come into work the following day, which statement was false in that Trinity Hospital does not have a Chemotherapy department in the area; between on or about November 2013 and February 2014, with intent to deceive, make to First Sergeant L.H., a false official statement, to wit: that she was receiving Chemotherapy treatment because she had cancer; from about November 2013 to about February 2014, for the purpose of avoiding service as an enlisted person feign having cancer; and, from on or about 10 June 2012 to 30 March 2014, steal Basic Allowance for Quarters, military property, of a value of$18,548.02, the property of the U.S. Army. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; restriction for 60 days; oral reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 9 June 2014, reflects the applicant was diagnosed in part with: PTSD (combat and MST); and, Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 17 July 2014, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. The applicant was diagnosed with: Major Depressive Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; DD Form 214; self-authored statement; applicant timeline; third party statement; Orders 329-468; Orders 345-5025; Two VA Forms 21- 0781; VA Form 21-0819; VA 21-4138; Form Attachment Orders; DA Form 1059; Orders 115- 183; 19 DA Forms 4856; six DA Forms 2823 with allied documents; 15-6 Findings and Recommendations; Memorandum for Record; DA Form 4187; Order of Court; Past Patient Appointments report; DA Form 3349; DA Form 5960; DA Form 268; DA Form 2627; DA Form 7652 with allied documents; case separation packet. 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 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's service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service Major Depressive Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (combat and MST). However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 17 July 2014, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, which indicates she was mentally responsible, and was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears, the applicant's chain of command determined that she knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow veterans benefits, which will provide her with the help she believes she needs. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits, 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 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 incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for her accomplishments. The third party statement provided with the application spoke highly of the applicant. 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 5 December 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 AR20170013369 1