1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 January 2018 b. Date Received: 23 January 2018 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, that the applicant believes the discharge was improper because the applicant received two punishments for the same offense. The applicant contends that during extra duty, the company commander attempted to separate the applicant with two chapters, but neither chapter was pursued due to a lack in supporting evidence for those chapters. After those two attempts were unable to be finalized the applicant received the chapter that resulted in separation. It is for these reasons that the applicant is requesting a characterization change to honorable. The attempts to chapter the applicant from the Army did not start until after an officer from the IG Office asked the applicant to write a sworn statement in the IG investigation of the company commander. The applicant was separated due to a personal issue the commander had with the applicant filling out a sworn statement against the Commander in a sexual harassment investigation. The applicant did not believe that a PV2 wrongfully engaged in an inappropriate relationship is considered a serious offense because after receiving an Article 15, the applicant followed every direct order the applicant was given and immediately corrected the behavior. Additional items to consider; on 4 September 2014, the applicant was diagnosed with Hashimoto's Thyroiditis (Chronic Lymphocytic) which explained most of the physical symptoms and multiple miscarriages. The applicant requested information about a Medical Board procedure related to the newly diagnosed condition. Command's response was to expedite the separation/chapter process. After separation, the applicant learned the medical conditions were easily manageable with proper medication. In the applicant's opinion, the applicant would have been a valuable example for resilience if the applicant would have been able to prove oneself after the UCMJ Article 15 rather than separation for a single mistake. 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, Phase of Life, and Anxiety. The applicant does not have any VA records available for review. 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 8 April 2020, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (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: 17 November 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 September 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: for wrongfully engaging in an inappropriate relationship (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 October 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 October 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 13 February 2013 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 15R10, AH-64 Attack Hel Rep / 1 year, 9 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 21 July 2014, for failing to obey a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully engaging in an inappropriate relationship with SGT J. B. between 1 May 2014 and 9 June 2014. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, extra duty for 45 days, and an oral reprimand. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 26 August 2014, which indicates the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I for Phase of life or circumstance problem, by history. It was noted that the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for Chapter 13 separation. Negative counseling statements reference acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; counseling statements reference administrative separation acts; extracts from AR 635-200 paragraph 1-16 - 1-18; UCMJ Action; medical document from Patient Portal Tricare Online; letters of support; documents from separation packet; and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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 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 seeks relief contending that she believes her discharge was improper because she received two punishments for the same offense. The applicant contends that during extra duty her company commander attempted to separate her with two chapters neither chapter was pursued due to a lack in supporting evidence for those chapters. After those two attempts were unable to be finalized she received the chapter that resulted in her separation. It is for these reasons that she is requesting a characterization change to honorable. The attempts to chapter her from the Army did not start until after an officer from the IG Office asked her to write a sworn statement in the IG investigation of her company commander. She believes she was separated due to a personal issue her commander had with her filling out her sworn statement against him in a sexual harassment investigating. She did not believe that a PV2 wrongfully engaged in an inappropriate relationship is considered a serious offense because after she received her Article 15 she followed every direct order she was given and immediately corrected her behavior. Additional items to consider; on 4 September 2014, she was diagnosed with Hashimoto's Thyroiditis (Chronic Lymphocytic) which explained most of her physical symptoms and multiple miscarriages. She requested information about Medical Board procedure related to her newly diagnosed condition. Command's response was to expedite the separation/chapter process. After separation she learned the medical conditions was easily manageable with proper medication. In her opinion she would have been a valuable example for resilience if she would have been able to prove herself after her UCMJ Article 15 rather than separation for a single mistake. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, 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. Also, 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 issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that her discharge was improper because she received two punishments for the same offense. 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 her overall service 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. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 April 2020, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable 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 AR20180002978 1