1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 November 2017 b. Date Received: 21 November 2017 c. Previous Records Review: 25 February 2015, AR20140003601 d. 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, the chain of command waited seven months to initiate the discharge for an isolated incident in September 2012. The discharge was arbitrary and capricious because after seven months of no additional disciplinary actions, the applicant was separated. It was unjust because after the incident in September 2012, the applicant completed 45 days of extra duty, received a counseling statement, and went back to work and training-there were no other valid reason to separate the applicant after the seven months. With no additional incidents or problems, the applicant was awarded the opportunity to reenlist for an additional four years. However, the applicant was discharged two months after the original ETS date. The applicant was not treated equally and was discriminated against. Since discharge, the applicant has acquired government jobs and gained college education. 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 mixed emotional features and Alcohol Dependence. The applicant is 60% service-connected for non-BH related conditions. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with Major Depression. In summary, the applicant had a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 October 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of MST), homelessness, a prior period of honorable service, and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1. (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 April 2013 c. Separation Facts: The applicant's OMPF has not record of her discharge proceedings. However, the following information is limited to the applicant's submitted evidence: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 March 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 31 May 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / GED / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 14T10, Patriot Operator/Maintainer / 3 years, 1 month, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA (22 February 2010 to 30 May 2012) / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / NIF f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2; NDSM; GWOTSM; KDSM; ASR; OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Discharge Orders i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 19 days (AWOL: 24 August 2012 to 29 August 2012, for 6 days, and 4 September 2012 to 16 September 2012, for 13 days) / NIF j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Applicant's documentary evidence: Health Record, dated 26 February 2013, notes behavioral health issues. Health Record, dated 4 March 2013, indicates the applicant being administratively separated had a history of going AWOL with alcohol dependence and depression. VA Mental Health Record, dated 24 January 2019, indicates a diagnosis of "Unspecified Depressive Disorder." 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 17 November 2017; DD Form 214; Enlistment Document, dated 31 May 2012; separation decision memorandum, dated 28 March 2013; and the applicant's resume. Additional evidence: VA Mental Health Record, dated 24 January 2019, and Health Records, dated 26 February 2013 and 4 March 2013. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, that since her discharge, she has acquired government jobs and gained college education. 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. After carefully examining the applicant's available military records, there are insufficient mitigating factors to make a determination upon the merit of her issues. The applicant's record is void of the documentary evidence of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was digitally authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of Pattern of Misconduct, with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. Although the applicant is scheduled for a personal appearance hearing, it would still be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the complete discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. 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 incident that caused her discharge 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. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because her chain of command waited seven months to initiate her separation proceedings, and that during the seven-month period and following her separation proceedings, she had no disciplinary action, but that she completed 45 days of extra duty, received counseling, and provided the opportunity to reenlist, and she was not treated equally and discriminated against. However, 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 her issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that she was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge and to change the narrative reason for her discharge. The applicant contends that since leaving the Army, she has been employed by the government and gained college education. The applicant's post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application. However, in review of the applicant's entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. 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. Although the applicant did not present any behavioral health issues, a careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed. 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. Based on the available record, 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): Applicant provided oral argument and statements in support of the contentions provided in written submissions and in support of previously submitted documentary evidence c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 October 2019, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length and quality of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of MST), homelessness, a prior period of honorable service, and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to 1. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3 e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JFF / RE-1 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 AR20170019830 5