1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 August 2018 b. Date Received: 20 August 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, she joined the Army after graduating high school and graduated basic training and AIT with no issues. At her new duty station, she met many Soldiers, who she later became very close with them. The applicant was a young black woman fresh out of high school and did not elect to leave the United States Army. She chose to stay in the Army as a proud Soldier of the United States of America. Months later, her life began to change when her mother became very ill and her close cousin had committed suicide. The had kept those things bottled inside her and only confided in one particular Soldier who she became close knit with, more than so others. The applicant states, it was only when her leadership learned of her personal issues and the bond the applicant had with a female Soldier, she was suddenly being treated with bias. The applicant sought guidance from her leadership, which was met with ridicule and indifference. The applicant tried to confide in her leadership about her personal issues and other personal issues, but she was shunned. The applicant began receiving negative counseling statements and verbal reprimands and was encouraged not to take time off to attend behavioral health, hosted by the Battalion Chaplain/MWR. The applicant was deprived opportunities to attend group meetings at behavioral health because her leadership believed the applicant was looking for excuses not to be at work and she had been accused of malingering or trying to malinger. The applicant states, she was labeled as being combative and difficult and her leadership turned their back on her troubles and dismissed her grievances. The applicant questions why her chain of command recommend or command refer her to behavioral health or ACS services or other services offered for free to service members and their families? No one recommended her for rehabilitative services or encouraged her to seek the services for fear she would not be attending field training or mission related training. Instead, her leadership gathered all the miscellaneous counseling statements the applicant received and recommended UCMJ action be imposed against her. The applicant states, she was not chaptered out of the Army for a positive drug urinalysis, for DUI apprehension, APFT failure, poor performance, dereliction or other treasonous acts or misconduct. The applicant served in the Army for less than two years and her goals for the military were cut short all because misunderstandings of a failed leadership. She was discharged, but believes there was no way during her one year and five months of service, she had been such a problematic service member to the point of being unjustly discharged without being afforded the opportunity to seek rehabilitative services. The applicant states she was discharged for venting her frustrations after repeatedly reaching out for guidance from her leadership who responded with indifference. The discharge has caused the applicant financial hardships as she has been denied unemployment insurance, benefits and educational benefits. The applicant is now a newlywed with a two year old and currently pregnant with her second child. At the time her application, she was homeless and jumping from home to home, trying her best to maintain a decent job and trying to attend school to pursue her Bachelors degree in Web Design and Software Development. The applicant wanted to serve in the Army as a highly dedicated service member and progress up the ladder. The applicant's chain of command did not allow her the opportunity to serve in the military with pride and dignity. An upgrade would allow the applicant to reap the benefits she desperately wants and needs to take care of her children and secure the type of future she had in mind while serving the country and providing for daughters. 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 Antisocial Personality Disorder and Adjustment Disorder. The VA is not service connected or hold a VA psychiatric diagnosis. 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 16 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 July 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 June 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On or about 9 April 2015, she was disrespectful to SGT V. X., in that she continually interrupted her during a counseling session and continually made smacking noises; On or about 8 April 2015, she failed to be at 0630 accountability formation in the vicinity of building 8422; On or about 27 March 2015, she failed to report to the 3-15 IN motor pool at 1300; On or about 26 March 2015, she failed to report to 0630 accountability formation in the vicinity of building 8422; On or about 23 March 2015, she was disrespectful in language towards Sergeant V. X., by saying to her "Fuck you sergeant", or words to that effect; On or about 4 March 2015, she failed to report to 0630 accountability formation in the vicinity of building 8422; At or about 1400, 3 March 2015, without authorization, she left her place of duty, to wit: 3-15 IN motor pool; Between on or about 1 March 2015 and 31 March 2015, she wrongfully communicated a threat to PFC J. A., to wit: injure PFC J. A. by physically assaulting her; On or about 14 January 2015, she failed to report to 0900 workcall in the vicinity of building 8422; On or about 12 January 2015, she failed to return to her place of duty at the prescribed time, to wit: 1300 at the 3-15 IN motorpool; On or about 16 December 2014, she failed to report to her appointed place of duty, to wit: 0900 change of responsibility in the vicinity of building 8421; On or about 1 October 2014, she failed to report to 0630 accountability formation in the vicinity of building 8422; and, On or about 26 August 2014, she failed to report to 0630 accountability formation in the vicinity of building 8422. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 June 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 9 July 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 July 2014 / 3 years, 23 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 91D10, Power-Generation Equipment Repairer / 1 year, 5 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 21 May 2015, 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. Commander's Report, dated 22 June 2015, reflects the applicant received a Summarized Article 15, dated 23 March 2015; for violation of Article 86, UCMJ (x3). The punishment consisted of extra duty for 7 days. The applicant received a FG Article 15, dated 21 May 2015, for violations of Article 86 (x2); violations of Article 91 (x2); and, Article 134. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $773 pay per month for 2 months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Numerous Developmental Counseling Forms, for various acts of misconduct. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 15 May 2015, the examining medical physician noted in the comments section: Depression followed in BH. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, she is a newlywed with a two year old and currently pregnant with her second child. She is trying her best to maintain a decent job and trying to attend school to pursue her Bachelor's degree. 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 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 contends that she was having family issues that affected her behavior and ultimately caused him to be discharged. 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. The applicant's service record contains documentation that supports in service depression; 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 May 2015, 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 applicant contends that she 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 confided in her chain of command for help, but instead her leadership imposed punishment against her. However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. The applicant contends her misconduct was not of degree that warranted her discharge, but rather rehabilitation. However, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. The applicant claims the offenses that caused her discharge were minor in nature. Further, the service record indicates the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant's numerous incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of her service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow veterans benefits. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge will allow her to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 16 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 AR20180011622 1