1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 February 2018 b. Date Received: 20 February 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the request for an upgrade is based on years served, four deployments and post-service conduct. The applicant states, currently enrolled as a fulltime student pursuing a Bachelor's degree in Nursing, with GPA of 3.6. The applicant is working as a work-study for the Tacoma Vet Center helping veteran communities. The applicant has a 10 percent service-connected disability for PTSD and has a pending increase for a disability claim. The applicant states, although the applicant had been accused of altering documents in the applicant's own OMPF/ERB using one's own log-in, but did it with good intentions. The main problem being that the applicant updated individual records, but has all the documents to provide proof. When the applicant was being audited, they focused more on the different last names the applicant used to log-in with. The applicant states, she was married three times, but believes the case was unfair and biased. The applicant believes that when audited, they had rushed through the case. Growing up in the Army as a young Human Resources Specialist, the applicant had good leadership and some poor leadership, but questions who did not? The applicant worked really hard and never complained about anything. The applicant earned every rank and accomplishments during the service. The applicant's Army career was one that the applicant wanted to retire from because the Army had done so much for the Family. The applicant states it is unfortunate that this happened and requests that the Board really look through service records and evaluate the applicant based on all the proof and character reflected throughout the service. All the documents are in the OMPF/IPERMS and some are missing from the applicant's ERB. The applicant never had any negative NCOERs and served 12 great years with four deployments without trouble. The applicant was hardworking and always received positive feedback from seniors, leaders and Soldiers. The applicant requests a second chance and a upgrade in discharge to either honorable or general, so that the applicant can really lift one's head up and say that it was honorable service. 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 did not have any behavioral health (BH) conditions (BH) diagnoses. A limited review through the Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) of the applicant's Veterans Administration (VA) records notes no entered problems. The Veteran's Administration has service-connected the applicant at 70% overall. A review of the available documentation found no evidence of a medical disability or condition mitigating for the offenses that led to the applicant's separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 August 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635- 200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 28 April 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 29 March 2017, the applicant was charged with: Six specifications of violating Article 134, UCMJ, for willfully and unlawfully alter a public record, to wit: her Electronic Military Personnel Office records, such conduct being to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces (26 and 27 February 2014; 17 July and 28 December 2015; and, 4 April and 31 May2016). Four specifications of violating Article 92, UCMJ, for who knew of her duties at or near Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, on or about 13 June 2015, was derelict in the performance of those duties in that she willfully failed to follow the eMILPO and Enterprise Database Acceptable Use Policy, as it was her duty to do by updating her own eMILPO records (27 February and 30 September 2014; and, 27 February and 13 June 2015). (2) Legal Consultation Date: (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 12 April 2017 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 22 February 2016 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 33 / 1 year college / 115 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 42A10, Human Resources Specialist / 12 years, 2 months, 12 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 17 February 2005 - 1 June 2007 / HD RA, 2 June 2007 - 28 October 2011 / HD RA, 29 October 2011 - 21 February 2016 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / Afghanistan (19 December 2013 - 19 February 2014), Iraq (19 December 2005 - 28 June 2006, 21 May 2007 - 12 June 2007, 25 February 2011 - 19 November 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM-4, AAM-2, MUC-2, ASUA-2, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM-3CS, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-3, NATOMDL-2 g. Performance Ratings: 5 November 2015 - 15 May 2016 / Highly Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Department of the Army Promotion Point Audit (memo), dated 12 December 2016, reflects After careful review of the applicant's promotion records and documents provided by the unit, it has been determined that the applicant entered transactions within the Electronic Military Personnel Office (eMILPO) under the user ID of: [four different applicant IDs]; directly updating her DA Form 3355, Promotion Point Worksheet (PPW) prior to the implementation of the automated PPW. Soldiers' with PPW access will not update their records outside their current lines of authority regardless of permissions. As a direct result, the applicant was erroneously selected and promoted to SGT. It is directed that promotion order number 145-005, dated 25 May 2011, for promotion to SGT with an effective date of rank of 1 June 2011 be revoked. Commander's Inquiry, dated 24 August 2016, reflects, based upon the available evidence, the applicant did knowingly complete over 49 transactions in eMILPO without authorization since 2014, which is against the eMILPO Acceptable Use Policy and punishable under UCMJ. The investigation officer recommended, further analysis and promotion audit be conducted by HRC to determine if her actions resulted in a fraudulent promotion to Sergeant on 1 June 2011. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Two DD Forms 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, she is a fulltime student pursuing her Bachelor's degree in Nursing, with GPA of 3.6. She is working as a work-study for the Tacoma Vet Center helping her veteran communities. She has a 10 percent service-connected disability for PTSD and she has a pending increase for her disability claim. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable or general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. Her record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant contends that when she was audited, they had rushed through her case just to get rid of her. 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. Further, the applicant requested a discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. The applicant contends VA has granted her a service connected disability for 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 applicant's service record is void of a mental status evaluation. It appears the applicant's chain of command determined that she knew the difference between what was right and wrong. The applicant contends that she had good service which included four combat tours. 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize her good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character 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 August 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change 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 AR20180006210 1