1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 16 October 2018 b. Date Received: 16 October 2018 c. Counsel: 23 October 2018 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 at the point of being discharged was truly dealing with some personal/family issues along with what felt was discrimination from the OIC. The applicant feels that everything happened too fast to show that the applicant was not this individual whom was being portrayed, only because the applicant wasn't in the right state of mind. Although the applicant may still have a ways to go mentally, the applicant has come a long way; a general (under honorable conditions) discharge may not be the worst of the worst but feels that it hinders the applicant in ways knowing that the outcome could have been better. Since leaving the military the applicant has been able to cope with the maintaining a civilian lifestyle. The applicant has maintained employment with the current employer for nearly 5 years, is currently working on a Bachelor's Degree in addition to raising two amazing children, despite the fact that no one may understand after receiving a diagnosis of the oldest child being autistic. It motivated the applicant to work on fixing a few things in life that may have limited the applicant as well. The applicant is trying to instill in the children that this diagnosis does not define who the applicant is as a person and plans to be an example. 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 Acute Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. VA records indicate the applicant has a 30% service-connected rating for PTSD. In summary, the applicant had a BH diagnosis that was partially mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 February 2019, and by a 3-2 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: Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 6 December 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 October 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: making a false official statement to SGT M.B., on 16 August 2011 Disobeying a lawful command from MAJ J.A., on 17 August 2011, 18 August 2011, and 19 August 2011; Missing movement to FOB Lagman, Afghanistan on 18 August 2011; Being absent from her place of duty on 18 August 2011 by taking an unauthorized space available flight to Bagram, Afghanistan, and remaining so absent until 19 August 2011; Having left her post without being properly relieved on 5 October 2011; and Having failed to report for her assigned extra duty on 6 October 2011. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 October 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 November 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 June 2009 / 3 years, 29 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 112 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 46Q10, Journalist / 2 years, 5 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Alaska, SWA / Afghanistan (3 May 2011 to 15 November 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 3 September 2011, for being absent from her unit from 18 August 2011 to 19 August 2011, missing movement of a space available flight to FOB Lagman on 18 August 2011, disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer on 17 August 2011, 18 August 2011, and 19 August 2011, and with intent to deceive, made an official false statement to SGT M.B., on 16 August 2011. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $734 pay per month for two months (suspended), and extra duty for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 October 2011, shows the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciated the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was screened for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. These conditions were either not present or, if present, did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. Command was advised to consider the influence of these conditions, if present when determining final disposition. Several negative counseling statement for various acts of misconduct and performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; decision letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs showing she was awarded 30 percent service connected disability for post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant contends that since leaving the military she has been able to cope with the maintaining a civilian lifestyle. She has maintained employment with her current employer for nearly 5 years, and is currently working on 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 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 seeks relief contending that at the point of being discharged she was truly dealing with some personal/family issues along with what she felt was discrimination from her OIC. She feels that everything happened too fast to show that she was not this individual she was being made out to be only because she wasn't in her right state of mind. Although she may still have a ways to go mentally, she has come a long way; a general (under honorable conditions) discharge may not be the worst of the worst but she feels that it hinders her in ways knowing that the outcome could have been better. Since leaving the military she has been able to cope with the maintaining a civilian lifestyle. She has maintained employment with her current employer for nearly 5 years, is currently working on her Bachelor's Degree in addition to raising two amazing children, despite the fact that no one may understand after receiving a diagnosis of her oldest child being autistic. It motivated her to work on fixing a few thin GS in her life that she feels have limited her as well. She is trying her best to instill in her child that her diagnosis does not define who she is as a person and she plans to be an example for her. The applicant contentions were noted; evidence in the record shows that on 25 October 2011, the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and could appreciated the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was screened for Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. These conditions were either not present or, if present, did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. Evidence submitted by the applicant show she has be awarded 30 percent service connected disability by the Department of Veterans; 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 his 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 applicant's post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and the applicant is to be commended on her accomplishment. 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 8 February 2019, and by a 3-2 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 AR20180015419 1