1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 27 July 2018 b. Date Received: 30 July 2018 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, in effect, she was victim of repeated sexual harassment by her Battalion Commander LTC D.P. The integrity of the General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) proceeding against the applicant was highly compromised by its reliance on an unreliable witness. Her separation code "JNC" indicating misconduct, stigmatizes and affects her future employment opportunities. The VA assigned her a 50 percent psychological disability rating. According to AR 635-200, discharges and characterizations of service should be based on a pattern of conduct, not isolated incidents. 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 no BH diagnoses. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with PTSD/MST and is 50% service connected for the same. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 November 2020, 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: Unacceptable Conduct / AR 608-8-24, Paragraph 4-2b / JNC / NA / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 25 February 2014 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 August 2013 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2(b) (5) and (8) due to her misconduct, moral, or professional dereliction and paragraph 4-2(c) (5) due to unfavorable information filed in her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). She was notified of the following specific reasons for elimination: Acts of misconduct and moral or professional dereliction, an AR 15-6 investigation determined that she had a long-term inappropriate relationship with a Soldier in her company and solicited prescription medications from that Soldier, and that she had an adulterous relationship with a Noncommissioned Officer. Conduct unbecoming an officer as described in paragraph 2a, above. A GOMOR, dated 28 February 2013, filed in her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). She was reprimanded for the conduct described in paragraph 2a, above. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: The evidence of record does not contain the applicant's elections of rights and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. On 16 September 2013, the applicant submitted her rebuttal to the notification of elimination action. (5) Administrative Separation Board / BOI: The applicant was a probationary officer and not entitled a BOI. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: On 10 February 2014, The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board has reviewed the Probationary Officer Elimination Case on the applicant. This elimination is based on both misconduct and moral or professional dereliction (AR 600-8-24, para 4-2b), and derogatory information (AR 600-8-24, para 4-2c). The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Army Review Boards) determined she will be involuntarily eliminated from the United States Army with a General (Under Honorable Conditions) characterization of service. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 2 December 2011 / 3 years / Obligated Voluntary b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 / NA c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: O-1 / 91A, Maintenance / Munition Materiel / 2 years, 7 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 27 June 2011 to 30 November 2011 / HD Appointed 2LT / RA, 1 December 2011 e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: 1 December 2011 to 26 August 2013, Fully Qualified 27 August 2013 to 1 January 2014, Best Qualified h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: An administrative GOMOR, dated 28 February 2013, for having a long-term inappropriate relationship with a Soldier in her company, that she solicited prescription drugs from that Soldier, and that she had an adulterous affair with a married NCO in her company. The investigation revealed that her fraternization created a negative command climate within her company, amongst both the enlisted Soldiers as well as other officers. AR 15-6 Investigation, dated 10 June 2013, the Investigating Officer (IO) found that LTC P engaged in a longstanding and practice of utilizing inappropriate language. This occurred during and prior to the NTC rotation and at other time while serving as Commander, 65th Engineer Battalion. He further fostered a perception within the unit that he was "untouchable" through both his words and actions. The IO recommended LTC P be relieved for cause and that he be issued a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) with a filing determination to be made following proper review of his rebuttal. In a memorandum dated, 1 August 2013, the brigade commander stated that on 20 May 2013, the applicant filed a formal Equal Opportunity (EO) Sexual Harassment complaint. An AR 15-6 investigation was initiated which substantiated an allegation of sexual harassment raised in the formal complaint. However, the substantiated sexual harassment finding was not related to her acts of misconduct which formed the basis for his recommendation for elimination action as the acts preceded her filing of the formal EO complaint. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA benefits letter, dated 26 September 2016, revealed the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, she was assigned an evaluation of 50 percent disabling, effective 2 May 2016. Report of Medical Examination, dated 15 November 2013, relates the applicant was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder with treatment. Adderall had been effective. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); petition, list of exhibits1-25; Exhibit 1, Personal Statement of L.T.; Exhibit 2, Request for Consideration; Exhibit 3, 2LT R., Memorandum for Record; Exhibit 4, P., Character Reference for L.T. and E.A.; Exhibit 5, VA Referral; Exhibit 6, General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand; Exhibit 7, Legal Sufficiency Review; Exhibit 8, SSG N's. Memorandum; Exhibit 9, T. Memorandum; Exhibit, 10, BN CDR's Investigation; Exhibit 11, Kurta, Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments; Exhibit 12, SGM G., Memorandum of Support for Reappointment; Exhibit 13, MAJ C., Letter of Recommendation; Exhibit 14, Major M., Memorandum of Support for Reappointment; Exhibit 15, B., Letter of Recommendation; Exhibits 16 and 17, Officer Evaluation Reports, 2013 and 2014; Exhibit 18, LTC P., Filing Recommendation pertaining to General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand; Exhibit 19, Rebuttal to OMPF Filing of GOMOR; Exhibit 20, Appeal for Removal of Official Military Personnel File Entry; Exhibit 21, Investigating Officer Findings and Recommendations; Exhibit 22, H., Statement on Behalf of L.T.; Exhibit 23, B. Sworn Statement; Exhibit 24, VA Benefits Letter and Exhibit 25, R, Memorandum for Record. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states that she previously served in an educational fellowship for U.S. Army Public Health Command and Oak Ridge Associated Universities. She currently serves as a Public Affairs Specialist at Tripler Army Medical Center. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. A discharge of honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions characterization of service may be granted. 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 "BNC" as the appropriate code to assign officer Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. 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 the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. 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 Army officers. It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant's unacceptable conduct diminished the quality of her service below meriting a general or an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the unacceptable conduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on active duty. The applicant requests a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating officer Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JNC" as the appropriate code to assign officer Soldiers, who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, unacceptable conduct. The regulation further stipulates no deviation is authorized. The applicant through counsel seeks relief contending, she was victim of repeated sexual harassment by her Battalion Commander LTC D.P. An AR 15-6 Investigation, dated 10 June 2013, the Investigating Officer (IO) found that LTC P engaged in a longstanding and practice of utilizing inappropriate language. This occurred during and prior to the NTC rotation and at other time while serving as Commander, 65th Engineer Battalion. He further fostered a perception within the unit that he was "untouchable" through both his words and actions. The IO recommended that LTC P. be relieved for cause and be issued a GOMOR with a filing determination to be made following proper review of his rebuttal. The applicant further contends, the integrity of the GOMOR proceeding against the applicant was highly compromised by its reliance on an unreliable witness. The evidence of record shows (IO's findings and recommendations), that the IO interviewed two enlisted Soldiers, a civilian, three NCOs and two officers. The IO found after thoroughly investigating the allegations against the applicant to include fraternization with subordinate and solicitation of controlled substances. The IO found that the facts support the findings that the applicant dis fraternize with SPC A. and supported the finding there was sufficient evidence to support the findings by a preponderance of evidence the applicant did request SPC A. to give her his prescription medication Adderall. The applicant also contends, her separation code "JNC" indicating misconduct, stigmatizes and affects her future employment opportunities. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant additionally contends, the VA assigned her a 50 percent psychological disability rating. The applicant provided a VA benefits letter, which relates the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, she was assigned an evaluation of 50 percent disabling, effective 2 May 2016. Lastly, the applicant contends, according to AR 635-200, discharges and characterizations of service should be based on a pattern of conduct, not isolated incidents. Army Regulation 635- 200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The applicant was an officer sat the time of her discharge and therefore AR 635-200, is not applicable. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant. However, the persons providing the character reference statements, some were in and some 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 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 4 November 2020, 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 / 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 AR20180011320 5