1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 21 March 2018 b. Date Received: 26 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the discharge was inequitable because it was based on isolated incidents during a second 15 month deployment with no other adverse action. The applicant believes the discharge was effected by PTSD, unfair treatment, and lack of rehabilitative efforts. The applicant's first deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan was completed with great success in 2007. After that, the applicant had attended and graduated Airborne School and asked to redeploy again with the 82nd Airborne. It was the second extended 15 month deployment in which the isolated incidents occurred, the stress of combat mistrust of the applicant's leadership, and prolonged time in a combat zone, induced anxiety and depression causing the applicant to lose track of key career initiatives and eventually caused the separation. The applicant had an anxiety attack while deployed as well which is documented in the applicant's file. Each instance in which the applicant was written up for misconduct was in a deployed environment. The applicant has since deployed in support of OEF as a DOD Contractor and has had many more successes. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the applicant had a medical or behavioral health condition that was partially mitigating for the offenses which led to separation from the Army. A review of electronic military medical records indicated SM had diagnoses of an Anxiety Disorder and was seen by behavioral health while deployed in February 2010 at the request of her command due to anxiety symptoms and having a panic attack. On 6 May 2010, the SM completed a Behavioral Health Evaluation which indicated a diagnosis of combat/operational stress reaction (COSR), in partial remission, but screened negative for PTSD and TBI and was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action. In summary, a diagnosis of PTSD can be associated with alcohol and substance abuse, irritability, and poor judgment and therefore is a nexus between the SMs behavioral health conditions and misconduct. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 July 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, matters surrounding the AWOL, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of PTSD and OBH) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, 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: 1 November 2010 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 1 September 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: wrongfully using spike 99 ultra on or about 1 January 2010; and Disrespected a senior noncommissioned officer; Failed to report to her appointed place of duty on numerous occasion; and Was AWOL from 13 May 2010 until on or about 18 May 2010 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 9 September 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 September 2010 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 February 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 35F1P, Intelligence Analyst / 4 years, 8 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (17 January 2007 to 16 March 2008 and 27 April 2009 to 26 April 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: JSCM, JSAM, JMUA, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2, NATOMDL g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 30 January 2010, for wrongfully using Spike 99 ultra, with the intention of obtaining an altered state of mind or an unnatural feeling of euphoria on 1 January 2010 and being disrespectful in deportment towards MSG X, a superior noncommissioned officer on 2 January 2010. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $1047 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 42 days extra duty and restriction. CG, Article 15, dated 28 April 2010, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 9 March 2010, 10 March 2010, and 12 March 2010. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $448 pay per month for 1 month (suspended), restriction for 14 days and extra duty. Record of Supplementary Action Under article 15, UCMJ, dated 6 May 2010, vacated the suspension of forfeiture of $448 pay per month for one months and extra duty for 14 days imposed on 28 April 2010. The vacation was based on the applicant failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty on 4 May 2010. Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 6 May 2010, shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis 1 for combat/operational stress reaction (COSR), in partial remission. It was noted that the applicant was screened by Division Psychiatrist. Upon review of available clinical information the applicant did not exhibit symptoms of either Post Traumatic Stress Disorder nor had she suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury. The applicant was therefore psychiatrically cleared for administrative action deemed appropriated by her command. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL 5 days (13 May 2010 to 17 May 2010) / surrendered j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF; however, documents submitted by the applicant show she was awarded 70 percent service connect disability for PTSD. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; character reference letters; developmental counseling's; letters of reference; medical documents from the Department of Veterans Affairs which includes information showing the applicant has been awarded 70 percent service connected disability for PTSD; and DD Form 214. 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. 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 his 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 seeks relief contending that her discharge was inequitable because it was based on isolated incidents during her second 15 month deployment with no other adverse action. She believes her discharge was effected by her PTSD and unfair treatment and lack of rehabilitative efforts. Her first deployment in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan was completed with great success in 2007. After that she had attended and graduated Airborne School and asked to redeploy again with the 82nd Airborne. It was her second extended 15 months deployment in which her isolated incidents occurred, and the stress of combat mistrust of her leadership, and prolonged time in a combat zone, induced anxiety and depression causing her to lose track of key initiatives in her career and eventually caused her to be separated. She had an anxiety attack while deployed as well which is documented in her file. Each instance in which she was written up for misconduct was while she was in a deployed environment. She has since deployed in support of OEF as a DOD Contractor and has had many more successes. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, although isolated 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 isolated incidents provide the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant also contends that her discharge was effected by her PTSD and unfair treatment and lack of rehabilitative efforts. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, the Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation, dated 6 May 2010, shows the applicant was diagnosed with an Axis 1 for combat/operational stress reaction (COSR), in partial remission. It was noted that the applicant was screened by Division Psychiatrist. Upon review of available clinical information the applicant did not exhibit symptoms of either Post Traumatic Stress Disorder nor had she suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury. The applicant was therefore psychiatrically cleared for administrative action deemed appropriated by her command. The medical documents submitted by the applicant from the Department of Veterans Affairs were also noted; however, the fact the Veterans Administration has granted the applicant service connection for medical conditions the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of her discharge processing. The available medical evidence in the record is void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during her discharge processing that would have warranted her separation processing through medical channels. 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 20 July 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, matters surrounding the AWOL, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnosis of PTSD and OBH) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, 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), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. 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 AR20180005531 1