1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 February 2018 b. Date Received: 29 March 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. In addition, the applicant requests a reinstatement of rank. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, expresses sincere gratitude for the United States Army. Having served in uniform for four years, the applicant gained a deep appreciation for the immense responsibility that Army personnel accept in service to the country every single day all around the world. Being a part of that effort was an honor and a privilege. The applicant states the reason for request is because the rank and discharge status have been improperly affected due to interactions with a First Sergeant that unjustifiably degraded and discharged the applicant from the Army. The interactions began professional, but soon, the First Sergeant began making inappropriate sexual gestures that gradually became worse. In 2012, the interactions reached a point where the applicant was challenged to agree with sexual requests or be singled out for unwarranted punishment. When the applicant did not abide by the requests, which the applicant will detail in a second statement, the First Sergeant used his power to put pressure on the applicant to oblige. The applicant states, first, the First Sergeant degraded the rank and gave the applicant extra duty. Then, when the applicant did not obey the unethical requests, he took it to the next level by discharging the applicant from the Army. He blamed this on the applicant missing morning formation. Aside from degrading the rank and discharging the applicant, the abuse and sexual harassment that the applicant received from the First Sergeant has caused an exacerbation of PTSD, which the applicant continues to receive therapy for these symptoms today. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review in the service record, notes indicate multiple medical and behavioral health diagnoses. The SM initially reported mild symptoms of depression prior to redeploying in January 2012. In a Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 March 2013, the SM was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action. Post-service, the SM a medical letter from JC Center for psychiatric services, dated 24 January 2018, indicating the SM was under professional care for PTSD, a mood disorder and ADHD and that SM had described trauma related to the time in the military. The SM has not followed up with the VA. In summary, there is insufficient evidence if the applicant had a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 August 2018, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of OBH and PTSD), 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 8 April 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 March 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 12 March 2013, she was disrespectful to 1SG X by interrupting him as he spoke to her and arguing with him about going to Behavioral Health, when directed by him to do so; On or about 22 February 2013, she failed to report for 0630*accountability formation at Building 7525A; On or about 1 February 2013, she failed to report for 0630 accountability formation at Tiger Field; On or about 27 January 2013, she failed to report for 0900 extra duty at Building 7525A; On or about 25 and 28 January 2013, she willfully failed to remain awake while on extra duty, as it was her duty to do. On or about 24 January 2013, she was disrespectful in deportment toward SGT X, a noncommissioned officer then in the execution of his office, by disregarding him as he gave her instructions; On or about 3 January 2013, she failed to report for 0630 accountability formation at Building 7525A; On or about 12 December 2012, she failed to report for 0600 accountability formation at Building 8004; On or about 4 December 2012, she failed to report for 0630 accountability formation at Building 7525A; and, On or about 28 November 2012, she failed to report for 0630 accountability formation at Building 7525A. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 April 2013 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 October 2009 / 3 years, 20 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / Bachelor's Degree / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 9L10, Translator Aide / 3 years, 6 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (4 April 2011 - 1 January 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-2, ASUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, CAB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 16 January 2013, failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty (28 November, 4 and 12 December 2012 and 3 January 2013). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $470 pay (suspended); and, extra duty for 14 days. Record Of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 29 January 2013, reflects the suspended portion of the punishment was vacated because the applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty on 24 and 27 January 2013; for being disrespectful in deportment toward an NCO (24 January 2013); and, for being derelict in the performance of her duties (25 and 28 January 2013). Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 March 2013, 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 an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features (Axis I). The applicant provided a copy of a letter from her board certified psychiatrist, dated 24 January 2018, which reflects the applicant was treated for PTSD, mood disorder and ADHD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; Case Separation packet; Self-authored statement; and, a letter from her doctor. 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. In addition, the applicant requests a reinstatement of her rank. 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 requests a restoration of her rank. However, the applicant's requested change to the DD Form 214 does not fall within the purview of this Board. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. The applicant contends that she was sexually harrased and discriminated by members of her chain of command; however, she had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge. The applicant contends she was discharged because she did not submit to her first sergeant's sexual advances. 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 her overall service record. 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 applicant contends that she has been treated post service for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). 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 12 March 2013, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates she was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, 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 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 15 August 2018, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of OBH and PTSD), 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 AR20180005060 1