1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 September 2017 b. Date Received: 10 October 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the applicant received UCMJ action prior to chapter. It was unfair because the Commander stated that it was sufficient punishment and was pleased. A chapter was never discussed until the applicant informed the chain of command about considering a pregnancy chapter. The discharge was unfair. The applicant requests the earned benefits and the honor to reenlist. 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, Depression, Insomnia, Marital Problem, a Parent-Child Problem, and PTSD. Post-service, the applicant has a 10% service-connected rating from the VA. In summary, the applicant had a BH diagnosis that was partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 April 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of PTSD and OBH), and severe family matters. Therefore, 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: 17 January 2013 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 7 December 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for her discharge; she made a false official statement to a noncommissioned officer (14 February 2011); she disrespected her superior commissioned officer, for which you received an Article 15 (3 March 2011); she failed to go to her appointed place of duty x19 (4 March 2011, 7 September 2011, 28 December 2011, 3 July 2012, 6 July 2012, 10 July 2012, 11 July 2012, 12 July 2012, 13 July 2012, 16 July 2012, 17 July 2012, 18 July 2012, 19 July 2012, 20 July 2012, 23 July 2012, 24 July 2012, 25 July 2012, 26 July 2012 and 15 August 2012; and she was derelict in her duties x2 (4 March 2012 and 30 March 2011). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 10 December 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 January 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 29 July 2009 / 4 years, 32 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 years / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 35F10, Intelligence Analyst / 3 years, 5 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 18 May 2011, for with intent to deceived, make to SSG J.D.W., an official statement, "I received quarters from the TMC" or words to that effect, which statement was totally false, and was then known by her (applicant) to be so false (14 February 2011); behaved herself with disrespect toward CPT R.B., her superior commissioned officer, by not appropriately addressing CPT R.B., after being corrected by CPT R.B. (3 March 2011); without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (4 March 2011); she knew of her duties, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that she willfully failed to secure the BDE Security Manager's Office key by allowing her spouse, D.F., to be in possession of said key (4 March 2011); and she knew of her duties, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that she willfully failed to secure the S2 Server Room Key in the secure key box in room 144 by taking the key to her home (30 March 2011) and 23 July 2012); reduction to PV2 / E-2, forfeiture of $383 pay for one month (suspended), and extra duty for 14 days( suspended). CG Article 15, dated 5 September 2012, for without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty x 15 (3 July 2012, 6 July 2012, 10 July 2012, 11 July 2012, 12 July 2012, 13 July 2012, 16 July 2012, 17 July 2012, 18 July 2012, 19 July 2012, 20 July 2012, 23 July 2012, 24 July 2012, 25 July 2012 and 26 July 2012); reduction to PV2 / E-2 (suspended), forfeiture of $389 (suspended) and extra duty for 14 days. The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct; and being recommended for separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 November 2012, relates the applicant had Axis I diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, insomnia and nightmare disorder (per AHLTA records). She was screened for PTSD and TBI; these conditions were either not present or, if present, did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. There were no observed behavioral abnormalities, no evidence of thought disorder or psychotic symptoms. She was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and had the mental capacity to understand and, participate in administrative / board proceedings. She met retention standards prescribed in AR 40-501 and there was no psychiatric disease or defect that warrants disposition through medical channels. She was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. Report of Medical Examination dated, 7 November 2012, revealed that the applicant was diagnosed with clinical depression and PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages). 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 the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service and the issues submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms 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 documented pattern of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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 seeks relief contending, she received UCMJ action prior to her chapter, it was unfair because her commander stated that it was sufficient punishment and he was pleased; and a chapter was never discussed until she informed her chain of command she might be considering a pregnancy chapter. 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 applicant also contends, her discharge was unfair. There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she was unjustly discharged. The applicant request her benefits that she earned and the honor to reenlist if she choose to. 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. Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There was no basis to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 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 19 April 2019, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of PTSD and OBH), and severe family matters. Therefore, 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 AR20170019052 1