1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 December 2018 b. Date Received: 19 December 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, initial discharge status was unlawful. The applicant was enrolled in the MEB. The applicant's commander disenrolled the applicant from the MEB and chaptered the applicant without an Article 15. The applicant is a disabled veteran; because of the discharge, the applicant is unable to receive any medical care. The applicant's chain of command continuously harassed and maliciously agitated while on medication and pregnant. The applicant was not given a pregnancy profile. 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 Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depressed mood; Delusional Disorder; Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, severe, with psychotic symptoms. The applicant is 100% service-connected from the VA for Brain Syndrome and Thrombocytopenia. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent; Anxiety Disorder, unspecified; Personal history of traumatic brain injury; Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum, and Other Psychotic Disorder. In summary, the applicant has 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 10 June 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, homelessness, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of OBH). 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 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. (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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 16 November 2018 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 26 June 2018 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for her discharge; she violated a lawful written order given by LTC S.B., to remain on the WTB footprint at all times and failed to sign in as directed by this order. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 July 2018 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant requested to have her case heard by an administrative separation board. On 18 September 2018, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. On 2 October 2018, the administrative separation board convened. The applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended the applicant be discharged with issuance of a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. On 7 November 2018, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant's discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 November 2018 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / the separation approving authority reviewed the separation packet, administrative separation board proceedings, and the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) proceedings pertaining to the applicant. He carefully considered the applicant's medical condition, her service record, her administrative board proceedings, and her acts of misconduct. He also reviewed the completed MEB proceedings to determine the basis for this separation. Having considered these matters, he found the applicant's condition was not a direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative separation, the circumstances in the applicant's case did not warrant processing under the physical disability system, and the administrative separation proceedings should continue. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 January 2014 / 6 years / block 12a on the applicant's DD Form 214 dated entered active duty this period, is incorrect and should read as annotated in the Case Report and Directive. b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 31 years / HS Graduate / 119 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 15Y10, AH-64D Armament, Electrical / Avionic Systems Repairer / 4 years, 8 months, 26 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 23 May 2018, revealed the applicant was aware of her medical condition(s) and appeared aware of the behaviors she engages in that endanger her and further, she acknowledged understanding of why these behaviors are concerning to command. Any reckless behavior and disregard for her own safety appears to be based on choice and poor decision-making and, taken alone, is not sufficient enough in this case to warrant involuntary psychiatric admission. She will continue to follow up with WTU behavioral health services as needed. The applicant received several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct; and regarding pending separation action. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL x8 for 38 days, 30 May 2015 to 31 May 2015 for 2 days, 5 June 2018 to 19 June 2018 for 15 days, 17 July 2018 to 19 July 2018 for 3 days, 28 August 2018 to 29 August 2018 for 2 days, 19 September to 19 September 2018 for 1 day, 10 October 2018 to 10 October 2018 for 1 day, 12 October 2018 to 14 October 2018 for 3 days and 16 October 2018 to 26 October 2018 for 11 days; mode of return for periods not in the file. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: VA Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating, dated 24 May 2018, indicates it was proposed to establish service connection for lupus induced thrombocytopenia (also claimed as systemic lupus erythematosus) as directly related to military service with a 100 percent evaluation. It was also proposed to establish service connection for psychotic disorder due to another medical condition (systemic lupus erythematosus) and unspecified depressive disorder (also claimed as major depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms, anxiety and sleep issues-trouble falling and staying asleep) as directly related to military service with a 70 percent evaluation. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 3 October 2018, relates the applicant was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder with psychotic features. Her presenting symptoms include depressed mood, mood instability, suspiciousness, impaired judgment, difficulty maintaining relationships, persistent delusions and hallucinations. Her reckless behavior and / or disregard for rules appears to be based on choice and poor decision making. However, due to the complexity of her diagnosis and impact on her thoughts, is difficult to assess or separate where behavioral health symptoms end and independent decision making begins; which is evidenced by her continued disregard for recommended medical treatment as well as blatant refusal to comply with unit rules, despite the magnitude of the consequences. 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); letter, VA Entitlements (eight pages); VA Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating (four pages); VA Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating (16 pages); and Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings (three pages). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 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. 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 general (under honorable conditions) or 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. By the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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, her initial discharge status was unlawful; and she was not given a pregnancy profile. The applicant bears the burden of presenting of substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she was unjustly discharged. The applicant further contends, she was enrolled in the MEB; and her commander disenrolled her and chaptered her without an Article 15. 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 applicant also contends, she is a disabled veteran; and because of her discharge she is unable to receive any medical care. VA Disability Evaluation System Proposed Rating, dated 24 May 2018, indicates it was proposed to establish service connection for lupus induced thrombocytopenia (also claimed as systemic lupus erythematosus) as directly related to military service with a 100 percent evaluation. It was also proposed to establish service connection for psychotic disorder due to another medical condition (systemic lupus erythematosus) and unspecified depressive disorder (also claimed as major depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms, anxiety and sleep issues- trouble falling and staying asleep) as directly related to military service with a 70 percent evaluation. Eligibility for veteran's 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 applicant additionally contends, her chain of command continuously harassed and maliciously agitated while on medication and pregnant. Although the applicant alleges that she was continuously harassed and maliciously agitated during her military service, there is no evidence in her military records and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence supporting this contention. Therefore, this argument is not sufficient to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge. 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 10 June 2020, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable based on the applicant's length of service, homelessness, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post- service diagnosis of OBH). 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 5-3, and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority, with a corresponding separation code to JFF. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3 e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JFF / 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 AR20190000321 1