1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 May 2016 b. Date Received: 9 October 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 pertinent part and in effect, prior to enlistment, was very active and patriotic, and was on a sports team. Observing and learning about 9/11 events led to the applicant's desire to join the Army at age 17, but the father would not sign a release because the applicant was offered to play in lacrosse after winning the national title. At age 18, the applicant turned down a scholarship and enlisted. The applicant did well in basic and AIT. (The applicant detailed the duties and performance at the first duty station, Hunters Army Airfield.) Although the applicant was adding more to a career, the applicant began struggling in physical training and any physical activity. The applicant became easily frustrated and irritated. A lot of the issues/symptoms were due to a neurological condition, called "Arnold Chiari Malformation" that affected the entire body. (The applicant detailed the medical condition and experiences, which led to anxiety and depression, and the circumstances and events surrounding the misconduct that led to the current discharge.) The applicant was diagnosed by an ER doctor, but the unit provider denied a referral. Many in the chain of command repeatedly rebuked the applicant for not doing well during physical training-the applicant tried to explain that the arms and legs were extremely fatigued and painful. Because the provider denied granting a referral, the chain of command did not believe the applicant. The daily headaches caused anxiety and the applicant was frustrated because no one believed the applicant. The condition led to three brain surgeries. The applicant was not treated fair by the unit. Although the applicant was suffering from the symptoms that contributed to the disciplinary actions, the applicant was involuntarily separated for the misconduct. Upon discharge, the applicant enrolled in college and maintained good grades and keeping up with few employments to help pay bills and expenses. The applicant helped coaching youth and high school lacrosse, and traveled to Israel to help coaching. VA has granted 80 percent for the medical condition. The applicant was accepted at a university as an undergraduate majoring in neuroscience, while focusing on becoming a physician assistant. The applicant also had a third surgery. The current discharge has hindered the applicant with educational expenses and employment. An upgrade would help with school expenses and employment while maintaining appointments at VA. 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 Arnold-Chiari malformation, type 1, Syringomyelia, and Adjustment Disorder with anxiety. The applicant is 90% service-connected; 50% for Generalized Anxiety Disorder and 50% for Migraine Headache from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with ADHD and Panic Disorder. In summary, the applicant has a diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 January 2020, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of OBHI), and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 December 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 March 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 22 October 2014, the applicant willfully disobeyed an NCO, SSG J.W. On 23 September 2015, the applicant willfully disobeyed a superior commissioned officer, CPT A.A. On 1 March 2016, the applicant violated a lawful order, to wit: US Army Garrison Policy Letter #21, dated 1 March 2013 and IMSH-ES Regulation 190-11 Chapter 2-4(a), dated 21 June 2012. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 8 April 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 November 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 August 2013 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 25C10, Radio Operator- Maintainer / 3 years, 3 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 25 January 2015, for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 23 October 2014, being disrespectful in language towards and NCO, SSG M.B., on 20 August 2014, disobeying an NCO, SSG J.W., on 22 October 2014, and making an inappropriate comment on 13 November 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended), forfeiture of $404 (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty. Counseling statements for storing a weapon in the barracks against barracks policy that prohibits storing of firearms in the barracks; being recommended for an involuntary separation; disrespecting an NCO on numerous occasions; disobeying an order; being insubordinate towards and NCO; failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; falling out of formation and being disrespectful in language towards an NCO; missing appointments; failing to follow instructions; and sleeping on post gate guard duty. FG Article 15, dated 5 February 2016, for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on four separate occasions 21 July 2015, 14 August 2015, and 16 September 2016, 31 December 2015; being disrespectful in language and deportment, on two separate occasions, toward an NCO, SFC J.K. on 17 December 2015, and 11 January 2016; disobeying a superior commissioned officer, CPT A.A., on 23 September 2015; and being derelict in the performance of her duties on two separate occasions, on 13 October 2015, and 21 October 2015. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, 45 days of extra duty, and 45 days of restriction (15 days suspended). Memorandum, dated 16 November 2016, rendered by an investigating officer (IO) reported the findings and recommendations of a commander's inquiry into whether the unit leadership followed the appropriate protocol in the separation proceedings of the applicant. The investigating officer provided the summary of facts and timeline. The IO found that the leadership followed the processes and procedures to separate the applicant. The IO recommended an immediate separation of the applicant, and to clear the leadership of all concerns regarding the applicant's separation proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 2 March 2016, indicates the applicant noted behavioral health issues. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 March 2016, shows an "AXIS I" diagnosis of an "Adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct." The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for separation under Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200. The applicant's documentary evidence: VA Total Combined Disability shows the applicant was granted 90 percent total combined disability, and in pertinent part, "generalized anxiety and insomnia disorder, 50 percent service-connected." 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 16 May 2016, with applicant-authored statement; DD Form 214; VA Rated Disabilities (Total Combined Disability); medical reports, dated 28 August 2015, 3 May 2016, 24 May 2016, and 27 February 2018; and Chiari Malformation Fact Sheet by National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and related articles by "Chiari & Syringomyelia Foundation." 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, she enrolled in college and maintained good grades while keeping up with few employments to help her pay bills and expenses; she helped with coaching youth and high school lacrosse, and traveled to Israel to help coaching; and she was accepted at a university as an undergraduate majoring in neuroscience, while focusing on becoming a physician assistant. 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 available record of service, and the issues and document 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. By the serious incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of her service that ultimately caused her discharge from the Army. 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. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of her service prior to the incidents of misconduct, and her post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that her complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of her characterization of service. The applicant's contentions regarding her behavioral health issues resulting from her medical condition, were carefully considered. A careful review of the available record and the applicant's documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed, and the applicant contends they were contributing factors that led to her misconduct. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to her misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because the clinical provider denied granting her a referral to a specialty clinic that caused her chain of command to not believe her; that she was not treated fair by her unit; and that although she was suffering from the symptoms of her medical condition that contributed to the disciplinary actions taken against her, she was involuntarily separated for the misconduct. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that she was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant has expressed her desire to have better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, eligibility for veterans' benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill 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 available 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 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 31 January 2020, and by a 4-1 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service and post-service diagnoses of OBHI), and post-service accomplishments. Therefore, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changed 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. 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 AR20180014783 1